Talk:Nicotine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Nicotine is part of WikiProject Pharmacology, a project to improve all Pharmacology-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other pharmacology articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. |
|
|
|
An event mentioned in this article is a May 16 selected anniversary
Contents |
[edit] Questionable description
I have removed the phrase "one of the most potent toxins known to man." "One of the most potent toxins known to man" accurately describes things such as VX (60ug/kg LD50 Rat) dioxin (20ug/kg LD50 Rat) or ricin (0.2mg cited as lethal dose for a person). "The LD50 of nicotine is 50 mg/kg for rats and 3 mg/kg for mice. 40–60 mg can be a lethal dosage for adult human beings" - T. Callahan
-Nicotine and cancer= From the article: It has long been thought that tar and other chemicals in tobacco were the main cause of cancer but recent studies showed that nicotine alone has carcinogenic properties by inhibiting the natural ability of the body to get rid of cells with significant genetic damage before they turn cancerous.
I'm curious to know if there are some references for this? Links to studies or news articles? This is news to me, but, that may just be the ignorance talking. Secondly, evn if it is true, this statement seems to imply that the carcinogenic effect of nicotine may be equivalent to tar and the other chemicals in tobacco. Is that true? If not, I'd like to propose the addition of more specifc, focused language to clear up the confusion. I look forward to the real scoop! --NightMonkey 07:17, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)
The article says both that nicotine is carcinogenic and that it isn't. This should be cleared up. 130.65.26.28 23:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
It is suggested that keeping the acetylcholine receptors too active may lead to this consequence, and also that keeping them too dormant may result in conditions like Alzheimer's. --Thoric 17:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Was it just me that noticed that the said statement directly contradicts the opening paragraph, where it states: It is not considered a carcinogen.... Maybe someone should change that. I myself, am not really qualified, as I don't know which is the truth. --Jimadilo (not a member presently) 14:58, 28 Jul 2005 (BST)
- agreed. I actually found that comment, on its on line like that, to be quite disconcerting. Obviously for most people nicotine==cigarettes so maybe it was placed there to emphasize that it's not the nicotine itself that is carcinogen. Adidas 14:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
According the the MSDS of nicotine (CAS number 54-11-5) found at the Sigma Aldrich website, chronic exposure has been found to be mutagenic in several species of animals, including humans... Unless I am reading the sheet wrong. --Negaluke 17:48, 14 Feb 2006
- I just read through the MSDS you're referring to, and the mutagenesis section you're referring to does not list results, indicating that the tests were inconclusive. Compare to the MSDS of a well-known mutagen, such as ethyl methanesulfonate (CAS 62-50-0), where results are given in that section. I've also seen a few PubMed papers where the absense of mutagenic properties in nicotine is expicitly stated, and I can try to find a few if you need more evidence. --Aramգուտանգ 03:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Contrary to the opinion of this section, there is an article in one of my organic chemistry textbooks (Vollhardt & Schore, p.1123 3rd edition) entitled "Nicotine and Cancer". The introduction reads "The mechanism by which nicotine in cigarette smoke is converted into highly carciongenic species is gradually becoming more clearly understood." Does anyone know if this is outdated or if there is any evidence to back it up?
[edit] Quitting
As someone who has quit smoking less then 24 hours ago, and is now waiting for the patch to do something besides empty my wallet, I am heartened to hear that nicotine withdrawal typically lasts 48 to 72 hours. I am somewhat disturbed to read that symptoms can last for years, however -- anybody have any details?
- I agree, this is confusing. The article states that "*Physical* (emphasis mine) withdrawal symptoms [...] may last for months or years, although they peak at around 48-72 hours, and generally cease after two to six weeks." The article focus on the physical effects of nicotine on the human body, not the psychological aspects. Yet I fail to find any reference to physical withdrawal symptoms lasting for more than 3 months. On the other hand as a smoker who quit for a year just to go back to a pack a day, I can guarantee you from experience that the psychological withdrawal symptoms could last for years. Adidas 23:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
-
- There's a problem with nomenclature here, because both can equally be described as "physical" (we're starting to unpick the chemistry underlying the long-term complications). The key thing is to distinguish between a "withdrawal syndrome", in which someone with a dependence on a drug will experience the effects described. However, there are long lasting changes to the motivation centres (the dopamine system mentioned in the article) of the brain, means that an ex-addict is at risk of relapse for decades after quitting. Be very clear - craving is not simply trying to avoid the negative withdrawal symptoms, and can be activated by a range of environmental cues. Confuseddave 15:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The box that nicotine patches came in also claimed in a fairly prominent warning that use may cause extremely vivid dreams. Since this doesn't occur with cigarettes (and nicotine is the only active ingredient in the patch), I am curious as to the cause. Any details on that? (I haven't actually slept yet, so I dunno if I will be affected -- I'd kind of like to, as I haven't remembered a single dream on waking in some twelve years or so; hopefully, it will be a goody)Tuf-Kat 05:45, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
-
- YES! This happened to me with the very first night using the patch....Wild, super-charged, super-fast content. I likened it to what I've heard described as being on an acid trip! Subsequent nights were still vivid, but less "crazy". -- 69.239.104.23 21:03, 16 January 2006
- The idea behind the nicotine patch is to deliver sufficient nicotine to your bloodstream to help alleviate physical withdrawal symptoms. You won't get the same spikes in your nicotine level that you get with cigarettes, but you shouldn't have major physical withdrawal symptoms. With the patch, the hardest part is getting over the habitual and psychological addiction of nicotine.
- Most of the patch systems allow the user to step down around week 6, going from 21mg/day to 14mg/day to 7mg/day. Tapering the dose like this should allow for a smooth landing when you're done smoking and make physical withdrawal symptoms unlikely. Dreams are a relatively common side effect from the patch, at least from me. ElBenevolente 06:29, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Nicotine is a stimulant, and like most stimulants it causes vidid dreams. Difference between smoking and patches? I'd say because patches are worn all night, the slow administration of nicotine through the patches continuously would have a constant stimulant effect, rather than peaks and troughs with cigarettes. Jarrod 01:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- As a successful ex-smoker (successful in that I quit), I'm wondering why so many choose the patch rather than the gum. Nicotine gum worked exceptionally well for me. (Perhaps too well as now I'm addicted to the gum.) Nonetheless, nicotine gum helps not only with the primary addictive qualities of nicotine (physical nicotine addiction) but with the secondary qualities as well (habitual and psychological). Smoking isn't just about nicotine addiction, but about other psychological factors as well, such as oral fixation etc... Now, whenever I feel the urge that in the past would have made me go for a cigarette, I pop a piece of gum in my mouth and feel just as satisfied. I couldn't imagine having been able to quit smoking without the gum, and with only the patch. Why is the patch so popular compared to the gum? Loomis51 22:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
-
I believe there was a time when morphine tablets were prescribed as a cure for opium addiction. Looks to me like something very similar is now happening with nicotine re tobacco addiction. Laurel Bush 12:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Article Link Removed
I added a link to an article about Nicotine and it was removed. I am wondering why? The link is to Chemically Correct: Nicotine by Andrew Novick. It discusses the pharmacology of nicotine in the brain and body and was removed by user Jfdwolff and I'm not sure why. Looking over the history, it looks as though this person has removed any edits of this page, although I'm not accusing this person of anything, but since there is no stated reason I am wondering why this is? Pogue 11:33, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Adrenaline vs. Epinephrine
Where I'm receiving my education (in the US), the term "epinephrine" is used to the total exclusion of the use of "adrenaline." I assume the usage is different in different parts of the world. I was going to make a note that adrenaline is also known as epinephrine in the article, but that got me curious if there is any preferred or standardized usage for these on Wikipedia.--Jfurr1981 18:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Every country in the world except the US calls epinephrine adrenaline, and as a metaphor adrenaline is more popular even within the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrenaline#Terminology
[edit] melting point possibly incorrect
I did some internet surfing on nicotine, and discovered that the melting point mentioned mostly was - 79 deg C, versus the 7.9 deg which is stated here. Can somebodye confirm this? Pieter1 22:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Good catch. MP of S(-) Nicotine (free base) is -79°C. The bitartate is 90°C, and the salicylate is 119°C. rmosler 15:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] How is nicotine produced for the patchs and gum?
Do the patch and gum manufacturers extract it from tobacco or use some other method? Aaron McDaid 15:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Good question. Anyone got an answer? And does a lot of tobacco now on the market have reduced nicotine content? Laurel Bush 16:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Toxicology
"...while the likelihood of birth defects caused by nicotine is believed to be very small or nonexistent..."
Is there a citation available for that? If not, I think it should be removed.
[edit] NPOV??
66.68.34.110 13:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC) This article, while accurate in the facts that it does present, is obviously part of a crusade (my guess; it's an American author as well.) There could be a little more balance. Starting off with the first paragraph equating nicotine to one of the strongest toxins known to man is meant to be inflammatory. Take for instance, the following true statement: "Some forms of fluoride are used in high concentrations to kill rats and crop-eating insects." Put down that cigar and tooth brush! 66.68.34.110 13:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd just like to say I do not smoke tobacco and am not a supporter of it. At this point I came to this article after reading the article on Marijuana (which I stumbled on after reading the rec. drugs article)...It seems as though the Marijuana article was written by somebody pro marijuana (which, once again is cool I myself smoke cannibus) and it debunks several bullshit studies that were done mainly by the government to give marijuana a bad rap. Now, we get to this article and it seems as though:
A. Whoever wrote this was very anti Nicotine or B. Nicotine is as dangerous as Cocaine and Heroin.
I know nothing about nicotine because I have never smoked but i'm interested in learning the truth about one of the most abused drugs in America...KroneMeltzer 21:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- This apparently irrational disconnect seems very widespread among the "liberal counterculture" one might say (I'm not some ranting right winger BTW and rather a "liberal counterculture" person in some ways myself). Many people have this bizarre idea that somehow dope is entirely harmless and entirely wonderful whereas tobacco is the most evil thing in the world evar. It seems to be based on a received wisdom that "natural" things are Good and "unnatural" things are Bad- so dope is perceived as a natural product and therefore Good, whereas tobacco is an industrially farmed product marketed by EVIL CORPORATIONS so must be bad. Cutting through the propaganda and hysteria, it seems a priori most likely that deliberately inhaling significant quantities of any smoke (tobacco or dope) will be harmful and carcinogenic, while environmental levels of all smokes (tobacco, dope, joss-sticks, wood smoke from a fire, smoke from cooking) will probably cause very very minor levels of harm, far too low to measure or to be significant in health terms. It's worth bearing in mind that humans have been inhaling low level environmental smokes for all of history- from the fires in our huts, shelters and caves in which we dwell. As such one should start from a presumption that we're able to handle these low level pollutants. It's when you roll the stuff up and inhale it the problems start. Anyway, the paradigm is: marijuana good, tobacco bad, and trying to persuade a dope-addled anti-tobaccoist otherwise is a lost cause.82.71.30.178 10:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dry Weight
Does nicotine really compose 0.3 to 5 percent of the dry weight of tobacco? 5 percent seems like a lot; I feel like that's supposed to be 0.3 to 0.5. Could be wrong though. Chachilongbow 14:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Isn't this contradictory?
Studies have shown that smoking tobacco inhibits monoamine oxidase (MAO), an enzyme responsible for breaking down monoaminergic neurotransmitters such as dopamine, in the brain. <...>
This reaction is similar to that caused by cocaine and heroin and is another reason people keep smoking: to sustain high dopamine levels. 213.190.45.89 16:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- This isn't contradictory. MAO breaks down dopamine, keeping levels of dopamine low. Nicotine inhibits MAO, preventing it from breaking down dopamine, thereby causing levels of dopamine to rise.
- Ben 17:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC).
Sorry, but I just read this article again, and I too am puzzled by the mixed up message of the paragraph questioned here: In addition, nicotine increases dopamine levels in the reward circuits of the brain. Studies have shown that smoking tobacco inhibits monoamine oxidase (MAO), an enzyme responsible for breaking down monoaminergic neurotransmitters such as dopamine, in the brain. It is currently believed that nicotine by itself does not inhibit the production of monoamine oxidase (MAO), but that other ingredients in inhaled tobacco smoke are believed to be responsible for this activity. In this way, it generates feelings of pleasure, similar to that caused by cocaine and heroin, thus causing the addiction associated with the need to sustain high dopamine levels.
So "nicotine increases dopamine levels". Yet, "nicotine by itself does not inhibit the production of MAO" (which reduces dopamine, wherefore inhibiting it would increase dopamine.) So this paragraph says something about how inhaled tobacco smoke increases dopamine, but does not explain whether nicotine by itself does so, and how. This article is about nicotine, not tobacco, right?
Given that nicotine gum is useful for quitting tobacco, I suppose nicotine by itself must also increase dopamine, which is the cause for the addiction. But I am not sure, and it is contrary to what the paragraph states. Someone knowledgeable should clear this up.
This really needs to be fixed, I think. --Lasse Hillerøe Petersen 20:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pharmacokinetics
Was looking for the half-life of nicotine in the bloodstream; which I'd've thought was a fairly standard pharmacokinetic figure. Anyone got one?
Confuseddave 15:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Found one, I've added it and got a source. (Benowitcz, 1982)
