|
AuxPriest posted:If the MAO inhibitors are used to simply reinforce the addictive properties of nicotine in the human brain, and the main addictive substance in tobacco is nicotine then...
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 07:21 |
|
|
Install Windows posted:Because there's so many cigs out there with no nicotine? Some cigarettes don't sell even though they contain nicotine. Jeffrey posted:It doesn't seem like it would be too hard to test nicotine addiction vs cigarette addiction, there's no need to speculate on what the results of such an experiment might be. I've already posted a link which summarises the evidence for this. There are also numerous studies involving denicotinised cigarettes which basically boils down to: in most instances, smokers prefer denicotinised cigarettes to plain nicotine (including iv nicotine). KingEup fucked around with this message at 23:39 on May 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:And we'd managed to successfully move on to interesting things before you decide to drag him back in. Who's the idiot now, eh? Hey now, if he does not have him on ignore by now like everyone else does, not much you can do.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Some cigarettes don't sell even though they contain nicotine. And? Look I get you are so into drugs that you want to say it impossible for anything to ever be bad but you're being ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:And? Look I get you are so into drugs that you want to say it impossible for anything to ever be bad but you're being ridiculous. What are you on about? Long term exposure to tobacco is terribly destructive to the human body. I am discussing why people form addictive involvements with cigarettes and trying to explain the problems with saying that exposure to nicotine alone caused the addiction.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
Sorry, nicotine is addictive as all hell.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
So are you just reducing the experience of billions and billions of people from every society that has ever existed and had tobacco to a moral failing? You really just seem to want everyone to worship you and tell you how right and smart you are by calling addiction dependence but meaning the exact same thing. Actually I don't know what the gently caress you're saying but whatever it is it's worthless and boring and you should shut up and get out. It just sounds like someone with no experience with drugs trying to sound smart.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
KingEup posted:What are you on about? Long term exposure to tobacco is terribly destructive to the human body. Cool. Nicotine is addictive but is not the only factor in cigarette use. Can we move on?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Sorry, nicotine is addictive as all hell. I don't really think so.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 06:53
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:I don't really think so. KingEup's alt account spotted.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 07:56
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:I don't really think so. Yes, the studies on nicotine's addictive properties are all shams and bunk, but you know the real truth, don't ya?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
AuxPriest posted:Yes, the studies on nicotine's addictive properties are all shams and bunk, but you know the real truth, don't ya? Yeah its habit forming, perhaps a little addictive on its own, but the maois in cigarettes are what are heavily addictive and end up causing what we generally call nicotine addiction. People wouldn't have so much trouble quitting without the additives. They are what cause the cravings and the long withdrawal. Again, it is still habit forming, but that doesn't make it difficult to quit to the extent that physical addiction does, and can be used to reinforce good habits like exercise if you have a little bit of discipline. Feel free to cite studies that isolate nicotine proving me wrong. This paper is pretty good on the matter. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0000230 They did manage to get squirrel monkeys to be willing to self-administer, but they clearly state: quote:Surprisingly, reinforcing effects of nicotine alone have often been difficult to demonstrate directly in controlled laboratory studies with both animals and humans as experimental subjects. Consequently, there has been continuing controversy in the literature about the validity of previous findings of reinforcing effects of nicotine in experimental animals and human subjects I wish I could do better than the washington post and find their sources, but see also this article: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/nov/12/20051112-102753-2328r/?page=all#pagebreak quote:Modern smokeless tobacco products contain nicotine in addictive doses to satisfy smokers’ cravings. University research has documented that smokers who switch to smokeless tobacco reduce their risk for all smoking-related illnesses, including oral cancer. On average, smokers live 8 years less than those who never used tobacco; smokeless users lose just 15 days. Statistically, smokeless users have about the same risk of dying as automobile users. For the effects of the added maois, see also: “Monoamine Oxidase Inhibition Dramatically Prolongs the Duration of Nicotine Withdrawal-Induced Place Aversion” - http://www.gwern.net/docs/nicotine/2008-guillem.pdf “Monoamine Oxidase Inhibition Dramatically Increases the Motivation to Self-Administer Nicotine in Rats” http://www.jneurosci.org/content/25/38/8593.full.pdf “Transient behavioral sensitization to nicotine becomes long-lasting with monoamine oxidases inhibitors” - http://www.gwern.net/docs/nicotine/2003-villegier.pdf Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 18:07 on May 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:For the effects of the added maois, see also: Hey, look three studies that support the statement "MAOIs enhance nicotine addiction." This has been going on for a while now. Nobody has posted a study that says nicotine isn't addictive. Studies that say other chemicals in cigarettes make them more addictive than nicotine alone does not support the hypothesis that nicotine isn't addictive. I don't know if this is a reading comprehension issue, willful ignorance, or just trolling, but it's getting really annoying. If you want to claim that nicotine isn't addictive, cite a study that shows that.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Hey, look three studies that support the statement "MAOIs enhance nicotine addiction." Well I think it's habit forming, I'm not engaging you on a debate about how we define words. Again, please cite studies that show nicotine by itself as addictive because you still haven't. I think that, on its own, it's comparably addictive to drugs like caffeine, so sure, we can call that "a little addictive", but that's not at all what people refer to when they say they are addicted to smoking, and it's not something that's difficult to quit in the way cigarettes are. Calling nicotine addictive in the same way that cigarettes are addictive is actively misleading, regardless of what semantics you want to argue about the word. Fishmech was obviously being facetious but one of those studies actually cites an example where withdrawal subsided when people smoked cigarettes without nicotine in them. I don't know if you're a jerkoff or just "trolling" but I'm going to add passive aggressive footers to all my posts just like you. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 18:59 on May 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:Again, please cite studies that show nicotine by itself as addictive because you still haven't. All three of your studies already do. Monoamine Oxidase Inhibition Dramatically Prolongs the Duration of Nicotine Withdrawal-Induced Place Aversion says, "It is widely accepted that a majority of habitual tobacco smokers become dependent upon nicotine present in tobacco smoke," with two citations. Monoamine Oxidase Inhibition Dramatically Increases the Motivation to Self-Administer Nicotine in Rats says, "Nicotine is the neuroactive compound that is considered to be most responsible for ... the development and maintenance of tobacco addiction," (with three citations). It then goes on to say, just as I did a minute ago, "However, nicotine is not the only compound of tobacco." Transient behavioral sensitization to nicotine becomes long-lasting with monoamine oxidases inhibitors says "Although the mechanisms underlying addiction to tobacco are not completely understood, it is generally admitted that nicotine is the major addictive compound contained in tobacco smoke," with three additional citations.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
Those are all citations of people becoming addicted to nicotine while inhaling tobacco smoke. I'm looking for addictions from people taking nicotine in isolation. Again, I do believe they exist just as caffeine addiction exists, but none of those papers try to generalize and say that nicotine alone would suffice to cause the same level of addiction as seen in tobacco smoke. They are different orders of magnitude, as shown by the studies, and again, it's actively misleading to cite one and call it the other. You can read down a couple paragraphs and see lines like: quote:In addition, it has been shown in several species that nicotine has relatively weak reinforcing properties compared with other addictive drugs. Such a weak reinforcing property cannot explain by itself the intense addictive properties of tobacco smoking, the difficulty most smokers experience in attempting to quit, and the high relapse rates after quitting. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 19:19 on May 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
So it's an addictive drug that has a weak effect on its own but becomes far *more* addictive when energizing with other chemicals. Whoop-de-loving-doo. That you think this makes it not-addictive just further demonstrates what the actual problem is here. You and Eup aren't disagreeing with anyone about anything beyond semantics. You are literally making a worthless argument about how you don't like how people use words to mean things other than what you want them to mean. If you have a semantic argument to make, just say "I think we should use this word to mean this thing" and then just shut the gently caress up instead of making a bunch of completely meaningless arguments to support your "point" that don't have a thing to do with it. If you're feeling really capable, you can add "and I think conversation would be more productive because of this reason if we went with my definition". The only thing you are arguing about is the definitions of words, so the only sources that might have relevance are, like, dictionaries. Or something. You're not going to find a scientific study in the drug literature that supports an argument that is solely linguistic. You need to provide a compelling reason for people to use the definition you want and then, if they decide they would rather communicate in a different way, accept that or at least stop whining about it. No one here believes that a drug being addictive means that it will solely, exclusively, and reliably cause addiction! That isn't what the word means! Using it like that is just making it worthless. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 19:30 on May 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
Again I'm posting in a thread where people say things like:quote:Sorry, nicotine is addictive as all hell. That sentence is not true at all and that's why all I responded with was a one-liner. I'm explicitly not arguing definitions because that is stupid. I love how you also call it stupid and then write a bunch of paragraphs doing it. Nicotine's addictiveness is orders of magnitude less than that of tobacco or heroin or whatever, that was my point all along.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
You keep saying it's "habit forming not addictive". You said, before he posted that, that it is "not addictive". That is explicitly and blatantly arguing definitions. All you're doing now is moving the goalposts on top of it. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 19:34 on May 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:You keep saying it's "habit forming not addictive". You said, before he posted that, that it is "not addictive". Where? I acknowledged that it was a little addictive early on, my claim was that it is not "addictive as all hell" on its own. Are you confusing my posts with the other guy's? I even included "(please don't debate the term I use and just fill in the appropriate term)" because I didn't want to argue semantics and don't care what words people use. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 19:38 on May 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
The fact that you're arguing, still, when no has ever claimed that nicotine alone is as addictive as when combined with all the other ingredients that get wrapped into a cigarette? The only argument is about whether or not nicotine on it's own is addictive enough to be addictive (by any reasonable definition, the answer can logically only ever be "yes"). You've agreed that nicotine is addictive, and are still telling people to prove to you that's addictive. I mean, if you're not going for a semantic argument here, I have no idea what you're actually arguing. Hell, you've even acknowledged that when many people say nicotine is addictive, they are referring to the whole chemical package that gets included with it. "Yeah its habit forming, perhaps a little addictive on its own, but the maois in cigarettes are what are heavily addictive and end up causing what we generally call nicotine addiction." You said that! Do you have an argument that isn't a semantic one, and is actually directed against... anyone, here? KingEup seems to be the only one who disagrees with you at all, since I don't think he believes even the total package of a cigaratte is addictive. And I'm pretty sure that one is semantic too, since I haven't seen any evidence that he disagrees about what cigarettes actually are or do. Near as I can tell, someone said nicotine is "hella addictive", probably using by what your own words indicate you know to be the common definition of "nicotine" in terms of how addictive it is (the one that's bundled with the other things), and you decided to turn it into a big argument about definitions while insisting it wasn't about definitions. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 19:48 on May 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
If A is more X in the presence of B, then A is still X on its own. You're just playing word games.Jeffrey posted:Where? I acknowledged that it was a little addictive early on, my claim was that it is not "addictive as all hell" on its own. Are you confusing my posts with the other guy's? For the record the addiction semantics I've argued is rejecting a distinction between "physically addictive" and some other kind of "addictive." More to the point, let's say everyone in the thread conceded your point on the MAOIs, where do you go next? How is this little side argument necessary to move the discussion forward? It seems to just be a, grantedly unintentional, derail.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Hell, you've even acknowledged that when many people say nicotine is addictive, they are referring to the whole chemical package that gets included with it. Right, I get that people will casually mean the whole package of chemicals when they say "nicotine addiction". However, in a D&D topic, it is actively misleading to present it that way, because nicotine alone is more like caffeine than tobacco. Fishmech is no stranger to exact wording and wouldn't have stated that way if they didn't believe that. So I made a one-line response and responded when questioned. If I'm wrong about the intent there, I'm wrong, but I was responding to what was posted.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
In that case, I will simply question if starting an argument about imprecise language in a derail of a derail of a semantic argument is actually beneficial to the thread. At least find a way to tie it back to something related to drug legalization.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
Whoa, that article about the efficacy of smokeless tobacco on reducing smoking was pretty loving mind blowing. That seems really suspect to me. I started dipping in '08, and always said I'd quit when I got out of the military. Anyway, I'm out, and I'm a handful of days tobacco free. I don't know the exact day because I didn't really make a concentrated effort, I just ran out of Copenhagen a few days ago and haven't felt the need to go buy any more. However, my last can explicitly states that Copenhagen is not a safe alternative to cigarettes, which stands in stark contrast to the article saying that I only shorten my life by a couple of weeks compared to a smoker. Not there isn't a ton of reasons (mostly cosmetic, some rather serious) to cease dipping entirely, but dying early was probably the one that made me want to quit the most. Second most was a desire to wake up with a mouth that doesn't feel like shoe leather.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
I think that article is primarily talking about snus, not dip. Dip actually contains a lot more nitrosamines than snus(these are one of the chemicals that cause cancer in cigarettes). However, both are definitely much safer than cigarettes. This study[1] couldn't find any correlation between snus and oral or lung cancer, but did find an increase in pancreatic cancer among snus users. It's still much lower than the incidence rate of lung cancer for cigarette users, but yeah, no reason to start back up if you have quit already. [1] http://www.gwern.net/docs/nicotine/2007-luo.pdf
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:In that case, I will simply question if starting an argument about imprecise language in a derail of a derail of a semantic argument is actually beneficial to the thread. I take it as a sign that there isn't any significant debate left about drug legalization.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
In other news, the NYT has an interesting piece on the [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/magazine/the-bud-light-ification-of-bud.html?src=twr&_r=1[economics of pot legalization[/url].quote:“It’s nearly impossible to find a consistent product,” said Cooper, one of the legion of tech start-up guys and M.B.A.s plunging into the world of pot. “You go into a dispensary and buy something called ‘Sour Diesel’ and try it. You go to another dispensary, buy ‘Sour Diesel,’ and it’s a different experience. You go back to the first dispensary, buy it again and it’s not the same, either.” It the goes into a good bit of detail comparing and contrasting the market with other ag commodities and trying to find sources of value in the production chain.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 22:37
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:In other news, the NYT has an interesting piece on the [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/magazine/the-bud-light-ification-of-bud.html?src=twr&_r=1[economics of pot legalization[/url]. They do a lot of worrying about how the value plunge is unavoidable and, most importantly, bad for the businesses involved in producing and selling weed, but it seems like they're really just forgetting basic economics. The price is never going to fall to unprofitable levels because that would require the producers to basically volunteer to start losing money. If joints become as cheap as teabags, it will be because the producers figured out how to refine the process such that they still see a profit at that price.
|
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
American job creators are going to innovate the 'get loving baked' industry and it's going to be great. This recent discussion though... I don't see any room for innovation in cigarettes, and New York City banned e-cigs, so that's that.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
E-cigs are only banned in places that cigarettes are banned. The important thing that's going to happen in 5 days is that NYC just raised the age to buy any sort of tobacco product, including e-cigs, to 21.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:E-cigs are only banned in places that cigarettes are banned. Hmm, do you think that will spear-head something like this maybe going national? Or is it something that will likely be the last straw for cigarette users?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Hmm, do you think that will spear-head something like this maybe going national? Or is it something that will likely be the last straw for cigarette users? Apparently some towns in Massachusetts already have local ordinances setting 21 as the buying age, and of course Alabama, Alaska, New Jersey and Utah already have 19 as state-wide buying ages. It makes sense though, and I would expect more places to start going towards 21.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
I think the new army regulations specify that e-cigarettes are to be treated the same as cigarettes (IE only used in smoke pits, never used in doors, cannot walk and use e-cigarettes, etc.). Probably takes out a lot of the incentive for smokers to switch.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
LuciferMorningstar posted:They do a lot of worrying about how the value plunge is unavoidable and, most importantly, bad for the businesses involved in producing and selling weed, but it seems like they're really just forgetting basic economics. The price is never going to fall to unprofitable levels because that would require the producers to basically volunteer to start losing money. If joints become as cheap as teabags, it will be because the producers figured out how to refine the process such that they still see a profit at that price. Nash equilibria can be unprofitable. Look at the airline industry as an example.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
But that's a service industry? The companies actually making the airplanes are making money hand over fist.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
rscott posted:But that's a service industry? The companies actually making the airplanes are making money hand over fist. Why does being a service industry matter? It's capital intensive and has high sunk and fixed costs with constant disruption. The point is selling that next seat is still better than not selling it even if it's still at a loss.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 20:54
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Why does being a service industry matter? It's capital intensive and has high sunk and fixed costs with constant disruption. The point is selling that next seat is still better than not selling it even if it's still at a loss. This should never be an issue for marijuana, though. Growing may be capital-intensive to some extent, but it's also very easy to scale. If you go all-in on a bunch of stuff for a giant grow op, yeah, the stakes are higher, but if you start small and scale up as necessary, things ought to be okay. Production in Colorado right now is struggling to keep up with consumption, so there's clearly room to increase production.
|
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
LuciferMorningstar posted:This should never be an issue for marijuana, though. Growing may be capital-intensive to some extent, but it's also very easy to scale. If you go all-in on a bunch of stuff for a giant grow op, yeah, the stakes are higher, but if you start small and scale up as necessary, things ought to be okay. Production in Colorado right now is struggling to keep up with consumption, so there's clearly room to increase production. Lets say (and I'm pulling numbers completely out of my rear end here) you spend a million dollars (in cash, no financing to keep it simple) to build a grow facility that you expect to last for 20 years. Your costs to operate it are $50k/year and you sell the crops for $200k. After your first year you book $100k in profits (200 revenue - 50 continued operation - 50 in depreciation). Next year, the price collapses and you can only sell the crops for $75k. Your choices are (A) run the operation in which case you have $25k net positive cash flow (75k - 50k) but book a loss of $25k (because of depreciation on the facility); or (B) don't run the operation, have zero cash flow, and book a $50k loss. That's why it makes sense to continue operating the business even at a loss. The loss of not operating it would be more.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 07:21 |
|
KernelSlanders posted:Lets say (and I'm pulling numbers completely out of my rear end here) you spend a million dollars (in cash, no financing to keep it simple) to build a grow facility that you expect to last for 20 years. Your costs to operate it are $50k/year and you sell the crops for $200k. After your first year you book $100k in profits (200 revenue - 50 continued operation - 50 in depreciation). Next year, the price collapses and you can only sell the crops for $75k. Your choices are (A) run the operation in which case you have $25k net positive cash flow (75k - 50k) but book a loss of $25k (because of depreciation on the facility); or (B) don't run the operation, have zero cash flow, and book a $50k loss. That's why it makes sense to continue operating the business even at a loss. The loss of not operating it would be more. Okay, this is a fair point. I suppose it depends, to some extent, on the source of the price collapse?
|
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 02:02
|
|