How can nicotine be good for me?

[bit_pattern]

Ok let me ask it this way... what happens if you want to grow organic tobacco?

Huh? ... You should stop beating about the bush because either you're about to say something monumentally stupid or I honestly have NFI what you hinting at.

 

[Blue Druid]

Ok let me ask it this way... what happens if you want to grow organic tobacco?

You can do so, and you don't need to apply any pesticides as the nicotine in the plant itself acts as an effective natural repellant to pests.

On the subject of nicotine I heard an interesting podcast recently on it dealing with it's general health effects and positive effects on memory.
http://smartdrugsmarts.com/nicotine-dr-neil-grunberg-interview/

There's also a (fully funded) indiegogo campaign to test and analyse the constituents of a large number of e-cig refills worldwide to determine their risk & potential harm.
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/e...is-evaluating-potentially-harmful-ingredients

 

[bit_pattern]

Just for the record, as a chronic oral-nicotine addict (I go through sixty 4 mg mints a fortnight - holy shit that's about 0.5 g of nicotine a month ) I in no way question the benefits of nicotine, I just question the faith people put into e-cigs as a harmless ROA.

 

[JessFR]

Ok, mayyybe I do have no idea what I'm talking about.... but isn't the whole aim of organic food to use no synthetic pesticides... in which case how can shredded tobacco be against the rules. It can't be because of the nicotine.

What am I missing here?

 

[spacejunk]

^I guess the deciding factor could come down to a range of things.
Does an appreciable amount of tobacco/nicotine find itself into the goods in question?
The idea of organic pesticides being safer, or carrying lower risks, than synthetic ones is a popular misconception.
There are some mighty toxic poisons that occur in nature.
Safety profiles are more than just toxicity, as well; the rate of degradation, effect on the ecosystem, dangers of inadvertant human or animal exposure and a range of other variables must be considered.
In a quick search I didn't find much about the use of tobacco or nicotine as an agricultural pesticide, but it could come down to something as simple as economics. Who knows?
Tobacco in general carries a lot of political baggage.

Something interesting is in bit_patterns' above post, the bit about tobacco dust being banned in organic farming, two links are provided. One is a dead link, the other is this;
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/7/205.602

Nonsynthetic substances prohibited for use in organic crop production.
The following nonsynthetic substances may not be used in organic crop production:
(a) Ash from manure burning.
(b) Arsenic.
(c) Calcium chloride, brine process is natural and prohibited for use except as a foliar spray to treat a physiological disorder associated with calcium uptake.
(d) Lead salts.
(e) Potassium chloride—unless derived from a mined source and applied in a manner that minimizes chloride accumulation in the soil.
(f) Sodium fluoaluminate (mined).
(g) Sodium nitrate—unless use is restricted to no more than 20% of the crop's total nitrogen requirement; use in spirulina production is unrestricted until October 21, 2005.
(h) Strychnine.
(i) Tobacco dust (nicotine sulfate).
(j) -(z) [Reserved]
[68 FR 61992, Oct. 31, 2003]

Is tobacco dust the same as nicotine sulphate? The way it is written implies the two are synonymous....when the latter of the two sounds much more "synthetic" than "tobacco dust". Is it a poorly written - or erroneous list? Or are both pesticides banned to stop a loophole existing (or something of that nature)?
Also note that the list is dated 2003!

Another Wikipedia mention of nicotine in organic farming;

Natural insecticides, such as nicotine, pyrethrum and neem extracts are made by plants as defenses against insects. Nicotine-based insecticides are widely used in the US and Canada, but are barred in the European Union.[4][not in citation given]

In 2008, the EPA received a request, from the registrant, to cancel the registration of the last nicotine pesticide registered in the United States.[113] This request was granted, and since 1 January 2014, this pesticide has not been available for sale.[114]

So...I wouldn't get too outraged about it without getting a more reliable, detailed picture of why tobacco is not (apparently? wikipedia??) used as a pesticide in agriculture (in the US...the land of Monsanto and agricultural subsidies).
Anyway after 5:30am here, so I'm going to bed!

Be great if you could find us a nice article explaining the situation while I sleep!

 

[Shimmer.Fade]

Nicotine on its own is bad for you. It is toxic. Among other things nicotine leads to the destruction of the innervation of the smooth muscles allowing our capillaries to contract/dilate as one of multiple mechanisms regulating blood pressure. REALLY BAD IDEA FOR PEOPLE WITH DIABETES

As a basis for how nicotine is toxic look into its activities on the nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotinic_acetylcholine_receptors

Our most powerful insecticides/nerve agents act on the same system at a different place. They make it so that the acetylcholinesterase is irreversibly inactive so that the normal transmitter is not being chemically split (inactivated). The only method of action against these nerve agents is immediate IM administration of parasympatheticolytika (atropin).

 

[Dysphoric]

REALLY BAD IDEA FOR PEOPLE WITH DIABETES

The article mentioned how its actually good for diabetes, contrary to popular belief. Even ncbi mentions it.

 

[Shimmer.Fade]

The article mentioned how its actually good for diabetes, contrary to popular belief. Even ncbi mentions it.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. First of all read closer, and you will see they do not say, "Nicotine is actually good for diabetes". Do you know what a PVD/PAD/PAOD is? NCBI mentioning it means that it is an accepted therapy, or even a plausible therapy for people with diabetes? 2000 is a loooong time ago in medicine, why haven't we heard of nicotine being used to treat people with diabetes yet? We now know what nicotine does to the innervation of smooth muscle in arterioles and capillaries.

The only thing I have seen nicotine actually being good at is this:

A 1982 study revealed that patients with ulcerative colitis had fewer flare-ups when taking nicotine. However, side effects proved nicotine to be a poor long-term treatment.

A positive side effect for people who smoke cigarettes and have a CU, but as they say the side effects are more harmful than the benefit of the treatment (even if administered as pure nicotine).

 

[blight12]

Yerp its pretty commonly known in the right circles that nicotine alone could be considered a nootropic and have health benefits when dosage and other usage issues are carefully considered a well. This doesnt count for smokes due to the other contents.

Ecigs however have worked for me as an addition to a nootropic stack and I can often notice the mental improvements when using nicotine in the right doses by itself.

But the risks might outweigh the benefits, however i was still very surprised to learn that nicotine is actually helpful and a nootropic by itself.

Nicotine on its own is bad for you. It is toxic. Among other things nicotine leads to the destruction of the innervation of the smooth muscles allowing our capillaries to contract/dilate as one of multiple mechanisms regulating blood pressure. REALLY BAD IDEA FOR PEOPLE WITH DIABETES

As a basis for how nicotine is toxic look into its activities on the nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotinic_acetylcholine_receptors

Our most powerful insecticides/nerve agents act on the same system at a different place. They make it so that the acetylcholinesteras is irreversibly inactive so that the normal transmitter is not being chemically split (inactivated). The only method of action against these nerve agents is immediate IM administration of parasympatheticolytika (atropin).

Many useful chemicals are toxic at certain dosages, but yes nicotine is especially so, but in the right dosage its not. Being a nicotinic acetylcholine receptor agonist is why its beneficial as a nootropic at the right dose. Nerve agents and poisions likely function as an Anti- Cholinergic or via acetylcholine inhibitation. Same area of the brain effected but completely different activity and results, so you cant really compare nicotine with nerve agents for example. Effects are basically the opposite.

 

[Shimmer.Fade]

Many useful chemicals are toxic at certain dosages

fact.

but yes nicotine is especially so, but in the right dosage its not. Being a nicotinic acetylcholine receptor agonist is why its beneficial as a nootropic at the right dose.

opinion.

Do you realize how many different places nAChRs are? It activates way too many areas to be as useful as more modern medications. Another example of a plant produced medication that once was useful, but is now relatively obsolete is digitoxin from the Digitalis plant. Its workings on the heart are almost all in the right direction, but not quite. We have replaced its function with modern medications which work far better with less side effects.

Nerve agents and poisions likely function as an Anti- Cholinergic or via acetylcholine inhibitation.

False. They (common nerve agents, organophosphates(ie Sarin)) are Parasympathikomimetika (Cholinergic substance). They inhibit the Acetylcholinesterase (AChE), therefore acetylcholine that is let out into the neuromuscular junction is not broken down.

Same area of the brain effected but completely different activity and results, so you cant really compare nicotine with nerve agents for example. Effects are basically the opposite.

You should read up before you act like you know something. Both Nicotine and most common nerve agents are highly active in both the CNS and PNS and involved in many of the same chemical pathways (which is why they don't make great medications), but you are right they are also quite different as to their form/function. Some of the main actions of these substances are on the neuromuscular junction, some of which are close to the brain others quite far. Botox (Botulinum toxin) works specifically and irreversibly on the same chain for instance (inhibits the release of ACh), and can be used locally with much success and little side effect. Both Botox and Sarin can end up paralyzing certain muscles leading to death. Organophosphates and Nicotine can most definitely be compared and contrasted as both are cholinergic/parasympathomimetic substances. You can even compare Sarin with Botulinum toxin even though Sarin is a cholinergic substance and Botox is an anti-cholinergic substance.

 

[blight12]

Soz a little late reply here as well, but i really appreciate the info above, another topic of great interest to me where i thought i had the general assumptions right but in fact, they where not. I try to make assumptions or conclusions based on my knowlege as its a good way to practice linking different information together in a useful way, however it also also falls victim to what they usually say about assumptions. Assumptions are the mother of all fuckups.

.Apologies, I usually always try to imply that I "think" it might work this way as an opinion, and not come acrross as forcibly implying it to be definite fact, but sometimes i get a bit excited and execute my posts in a way that sounds like a know it all. . Back to the research on this one, thanks again!