For example, I have never smoked a cigarette, and it requires no effort on my part to not be curious about what it is like.
I’ve never smoked, but I’ve been around people who were, and found the smell repulsive. I can effectively (I think) imagine what it would be like to smoke a cigarette personally, and so I’m not too curious about that. I am, however, truly curious about what it would be like to try LSD or heroin. I’m not going to, because I know that there are risks to that experiment, the same way I wouldn’t try to build an atomic reactor in my backyard. I still think I qualify as curious, though, because if there was a way to experience what taking LSD or heroin is like, without having to deal with health risks or addiction, I’d try it in a heartbeat. Some tests are dangerous to run, and sometimes, no matter how much it bugs us, we have to find another way to learn, or be content with our ignorance.
I found it repulsive—I was such a self-righteous anti-smoker—until I, ah, started. Mind you, at the time (late ’80s, early ’90s) my idea of recreation was going out to see indie rock bands play in pubs. I read an estimate at the time that someone would passively smoke about a pack a night—but I was still somewhat surprised that fresh smoke was not a shock to my system at all.
Bloody cigarettes. Actually more addictive than heroin, and delivered to the brain like crack—so even when your body is over nicotine, your brain craves the hit. Most of this is a rant by me. (I last had a cigarette a couple of months ago, when I was really quite drunk and someone had clove cigarettes, which are even worse for you in every way than regular cigarettes. And it was soooo niiiiice. If I ever make any claims to “rationality”, belabour me about the head with this.)
Heroin, I expect it would be like codeine only waaaaay better (like Latvian homebrew vodka to light beer). I did my back a number of years ago and got lots of codeine for it. Fifty million dead junkies aren’t wrong—opiates are nice. If it’s any comfort, reasonably pure heroin isn’t actually that bad for you—the hazard with the street stuff is what it’s cut with and the unpredictable dosages.
I have not started smoking yet. However, I have been in tobacco shops, and I find that they smell wonderful. Also, certain kinds of tobacco, smoked, give off a pleasant aroma. Cigarettes are unpleasant but cigarettes are only one class of tobacco product. There are also cigars and pipes, and I think it must be one or both of these which smell so good.
I’m currently intrigued by electronic cigarettes, which deliver nicotine without the other parts of tobacco smoke, and which therefore are presumably much, much less unhealthy, and presumably much, much less “repulsive”.
E-cigs don’t fill your lungs with carcinogenic burning vegetable matter (though I note that even non-burning chewing tobacco can cause cancer), but nicotine may not be such a great chemical in any case (e.g. it’s correlated with Alzheimer’s, though the evidence is contradictory) and e-cigs don’t have that lovely fresh tobacco smell. They really are for nicotine addicts trying not to get cancer.
While I don’t necessarily warn against nicotine I don’t suggest e-cigs as a delivery mechanism. The rapid to-the-lungs delivery has addictive potential—nothing like a cigarette but still in contrast to a patch. The ‘burst’ of nicotine is also less useful therapeutically than the more mild but longer lasting effect of a patch or even lozenge.
Yes, as I said: the delivery mechanism (lungs direct to brain) is just like crack, and that’s why you (or I, at least) crave the hit months after the addiction is out of your body. This is why they are for people who are already addicts but want to reduce the harm.
“Don’t do it” is maybe not the most persuasive argument against doing it, though it is not entirely unpersuasive.
However the superstimuli article you link to reveals that I am already indulging in many superstimuli. I’m not sure there is anything mentioned there that I don’t indulge in. Online games—check. World of Warcraft—check. Candy bar—check. Video games (generally) very big check. Feminine beauty products—in the sense that I enjoy looking at a nicely made-up face, check. Playing video games so much that I pass up food—hah, I wish! The video game diet. I could use any help I can get. Cocolate cookies—check. Ice cream—check. Something cute that I bring up instead of my own child—check! I have a cute little dog.
And I already indulge in something not mentioned in the superstimuli article but which is much more relevant to the question of nicotine. And that is caffeine. Coffee, tea, chocolate, caffeinated sodas.
A particularly bad thing to consider given your evident lack of self control! If you tend to get addicted to things then avoid addictive things with abuse potential.
A particularly bad thing to consider given your evident lack of self control!
You have a funny way of interpreting non-quantitative evidence quantitatively. You would need a quantitative account in order to infer addiction. Take World of Warcraft. I played it for a total of three weeks, just one evening per week, and that was three years ago. So, I played it, I liked it, and then I moved on. Or take my little dog. Surely you don’t mean to say that owning a dog demonstrates a lack of self control! I’m sure that dog owners across America would be very interested to hear your reasoning for that.
How about some basic respect for other people that you don’t know. I mean, really, is telling a complete stranger that he’s an addict supposed to persuade him of something?
Let’s recap. Gerard said “don’t do it”, which is not much of an argument. He pointed out that it’s a superstimulus, like ice cream. That’s really one of the examples from the article he linked to. So what it amounts to is that I shouldn’t try e-cigarettes because they’re like ice cream. Another example ie video games. So, I shouldn’t try cigarettes because they’re like video games. Really? That’s the reason? That’s the argument? Or: I shouldn’t try cigarettes because they’re like chocolate chip cookies.
He argued that nicotine is harmful but was honest enough to admit that the evidence is mixed—from which I gather that the claim is not all that strong.
That’s really one of the examples from the article he linked to. So what it amounts to is that I shouldn’t try e-cigarettes because they’re like ice cream. Another example ie video games. So, I shouldn’t try cigarettes because they’re like video games. Really? That’s the reason? That’s the argument? Or: I shouldn’t try cigarettes because they’re like chocolate chip cookies.
He argued that nicotine is harmful but was honest enough to admit that the evidence is mixed—from which I gather that the claim is not all that strong.
Whoa, let’s be careful here. It’s very important to not mix arguments about nicotine’s safety with arguments about smoking or cigarettes’ safety.
I agree that nicotine looks fairly safe & quite beneficial; but while I toy with some of the pro-smoking studies, they are nowhere near enough to convince me that smoking is safe given all the contrary studies.
Caffeine, puppies, chocolate—these are not ‘gateway drugs’ to cannabis, prostitution, or crack cocaine. But if relatively safe & harmless nicotine use (such as patches or e-cigarettes) is a gateway to the unsafe & harmful smoking, then that’s an argument worth taking seriously.
But if relatively safe & harmless nicotine use (such as patches or e-cigarettes) is a gateway to the unsafe & harmful smoking, then that’s an argument worth taking seriously.
I don’t recall seeing this argument until now. On the concept of the “gateway” anything, it’s often abused. If some subset of patch users—who had not smoked yet—go on to smoke, then technically I suppose the patch could be called a gateway to smoking. But by the same token, playing video games could be called a gateway to playing them to death. Becoming a priest could be called a gateway to abusing children. And so on. Technically, even visiting a tobacco shop with its wonderful aromas could be called a gateway to smoking, because some will want to try a cigar.
Rather than lean on the easily abused “gateway” argument, attempting a quantitative argument would be more genuinely informative.
You have a funny way of interpreting non-quantitative evidence quantitatively.
Perhaps. You must admit you were heavy on the emphasis with regard to just how much addictive stuff you are already into. I’m glad to see your point was a little different to the one I had inferred! WoW is evil.
He argued that nicotine is harmful but was honest enough to admit that the evidence is mixed—from which I gather that the claim is not all that strong.
I saw that and followed the link. I was curious since I sometimes use nicotine sources myself—for most part it seems to a better drug than caffeine and, with the right delivery mechanism, less addictive. Hearing about the effect on plaque surprised me somewhat.
I’ve never smoked, but I’ve been around people who were, and found the smell repulsive. I can effectively (I think) imagine what it would be like to smoke a cigarette personally, and so I’m not too curious about that. I am, however, truly curious about what it would be like to try LSD or heroin. I’m not going to, because I know that there are risks to that experiment, the same way I wouldn’t try to build an atomic reactor in my backyard. I still think I qualify as curious, though, because if there was a way to experience what taking LSD or heroin is like, without having to deal with health risks or addiction, I’d try it in a heartbeat. Some tests are dangerous to run, and sometimes, no matter how much it bugs us, we have to find another way to learn, or be content with our ignorance.
I found it repulsive—I was such a self-righteous anti-smoker—until I, ah, started. Mind you, at the time (late ’80s, early ’90s) my idea of recreation was going out to see indie rock bands play in pubs. I read an estimate at the time that someone would passively smoke about a pack a night—but I was still somewhat surprised that fresh smoke was not a shock to my system at all.
Bloody cigarettes. Actually more addictive than heroin, and delivered to the brain like crack—so even when your body is over nicotine, your brain craves the hit. Most of this is a rant by me. (I last had a cigarette a couple of months ago, when I was really quite drunk and someone had clove cigarettes, which are even worse for you in every way than regular cigarettes. And it was soooo niiiiice. If I ever make any claims to “rationality”, belabour me about the head with this.)
Heroin, I expect it would be like codeine only waaaaay better (like Latvian homebrew vodka to light beer). I did my back a number of years ago and got lots of codeine for it. Fifty million dead junkies aren’t wrong—opiates are nice. If it’s any comfort, reasonably pure heroin isn’t actually that bad for you—the hazard with the street stuff is what it’s cut with and the unpredictable dosages.
I have not started smoking yet. However, I have been in tobacco shops, and I find that they smell wonderful. Also, certain kinds of tobacco, smoked, give off a pleasant aroma. Cigarettes are unpleasant but cigarettes are only one class of tobacco product. There are also cigars and pipes, and I think it must be one or both of these which smell so good.
I’m currently intrigued by electronic cigarettes, which deliver nicotine without the other parts of tobacco smoke, and which therefore are presumably much, much less unhealthy, and presumably much, much less “repulsive”.
DON’T DO IT! DON’T DO IT! PLEASE! STAY OUT OF THOSE PLACES! TASTY STIMULATORY HAZARD!
E-cigs don’t fill your lungs with carcinogenic burning vegetable matter (though I note that even non-burning chewing tobacco can cause cancer), but nicotine may not be such a great chemical in any case (e.g. it’s correlated with Alzheimer’s, though the evidence is contradictory) and e-cigs don’t have that lovely fresh tobacco smell. They really are for nicotine addicts trying not to get cancer.
While I don’t necessarily warn against nicotine I don’t suggest e-cigs as a delivery mechanism. The rapid to-the-lungs delivery has addictive potential—nothing like a cigarette but still in contrast to a patch. The ‘burst’ of nicotine is also less useful therapeutically than the more mild but longer lasting effect of a patch or even lozenge.
Yes, as I said: the delivery mechanism (lungs direct to brain) is just like crack, and that’s why you (or I, at least) crave the hit months after the addiction is out of your body. This is why they are for people who are already addicts but want to reduce the harm.
“Don’t do it” is maybe not the most persuasive argument against doing it, though it is not entirely unpersuasive.
However the superstimuli article you link to reveals that I am already indulging in many superstimuli. I’m not sure there is anything mentioned there that I don’t indulge in. Online games—check. World of Warcraft—check. Candy bar—check. Video games (generally) very big check. Feminine beauty products—in the sense that I enjoy looking at a nicely made-up face, check. Playing video games so much that I pass up food—hah, I wish! The video game diet. I could use any help I can get. Cocolate cookies—check. Ice cream—check. Something cute that I bring up instead of my own child—check! I have a cute little dog.
And I already indulge in something not mentioned in the superstimuli article but which is much more relevant to the question of nicotine. And that is caffeine. Coffee, tea, chocolate, caffeinated sodas.
What’s one more? :)
A particularly bad thing to consider given your evident lack of self control! If you tend to get addicted to things then avoid addictive things with abuse potential.
You have a funny way of interpreting non-quantitative evidence quantitatively. You would need a quantitative account in order to infer addiction. Take World of Warcraft. I played it for a total of three weeks, just one evening per week, and that was three years ago. So, I played it, I liked it, and then I moved on. Or take my little dog. Surely you don’t mean to say that owning a dog demonstrates a lack of self control! I’m sure that dog owners across America would be very interested to hear your reasoning for that.
How about some basic respect for other people that you don’t know. I mean, really, is telling a complete stranger that he’s an addict supposed to persuade him of something?
Let’s recap. Gerard said “don’t do it”, which is not much of an argument. He pointed out that it’s a superstimulus, like ice cream. That’s really one of the examples from the article he linked to. So what it amounts to is that I shouldn’t try e-cigarettes because they’re like ice cream. Another example ie video games. So, I shouldn’t try cigarettes because they’re like video games. Really? That’s the reason? That’s the argument? Or: I shouldn’t try cigarettes because they’re like chocolate chip cookies.
He argued that nicotine is harmful but was honest enough to admit that the evidence is mixed—from which I gather that the claim is not all that strong.
Whoa, let’s be careful here. It’s very important to not mix arguments about nicotine’s safety with arguments about smoking or cigarettes’ safety.
I agree that nicotine looks fairly safe & quite beneficial; but while I toy with some of the pro-smoking studies, they are nowhere near enough to convince me that smoking is safe given all the contrary studies.
Caffeine, puppies, chocolate—these are not ‘gateway drugs’ to cannabis, prostitution, or crack cocaine. But if relatively safe & harmless nicotine use (such as patches or e-cigarettes) is a gateway to the unsafe & harmful smoking, then that’s an argument worth taking seriously.
I don’t recall seeing this argument until now. On the concept of the “gateway” anything, it’s often abused. If some subset of patch users—who had not smoked yet—go on to smoke, then technically I suppose the patch could be called a gateway to smoking. But by the same token, playing video games could be called a gateway to playing them to death. Becoming a priest could be called a gateway to abusing children. And so on. Technically, even visiting a tobacco shop with its wonderful aromas could be called a gateway to smoking, because some will want to try a cigar.
Rather than lean on the easily abused “gateway” argument, attempting a quantitative argument would be more genuinely informative.
Perhaps. You must admit you were heavy on the emphasis with regard to just how much addictive stuff you are already into. I’m glad to see your point was a little different to the one I had inferred! WoW is evil.
I saw that and followed the link. I was curious since I sometimes use nicotine sources myself—for most part it seems to a better drug than caffeine and, with the right delivery mechanism, less addictive. Hearing about the effect on plaque surprised me somewhat.