shepj
Bluelighter
hey guys.. I was looking through the list of additives in tobacco products, and I started thinking. I don't know a single person who is addicted to 1) cigars & 2) organic or additive-free tobacco, so it made me wonder, is it really the nicotine that people are addicted to, or is it something else present in the tobacco? Then I thought a little more, and nicotine gum & patches came to my mind.. I realized that even though people are on suped up nicotine doses from these gums/patches, they still crave CIGARETTES, not nicotine.
So I started looking through the additives a little more, and then looking at some common drug syntheses. Now I am not asking for a drug synthesis, but I really think that tobacco products are taking advantage of the additives, the heat caused by burning the tobacco, and the pressure created when inhaling.
So, since I am no where near as well versed as I hope anyone in this ADD section, I only have a simple way to relate what I am trying to say. If any of you are familiar with anabolic steroids, you'd see that after they were made illegal, a nice alternative called prohormones (or prosteroids) came onto the market. These prohormones utilized the body's ability to convert a legal substance into an illegal anabolic steroid... but the conversion was optimized by the body's natural enzymes.
What my question is, is it possible that the additives in nicotine are really just synthesizing a new drug, causing the true addiction to cigarettes and such? I looked at one of the syntheses for amphetamine, and noticed that it is possible to use cinnamaldehyde (not going to elaborate, again this isn't for a synthesis tutorial or for help, just curious). I saw that a lot of chemicals that can be optimized in this reaction for making amphetamine via cinnamaldehyde have similar counterparts (or so it appeared to me) that are also present in cigarettes. So would it be possible to make an analogue of amphetamine (or another phenethylamine) and have the body turn it into a more potent/addictive substance?
All right, so here is a link for the 599 additives in cigarettes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_additives_in_cigarettes, yet they claim that there are FOUR THOUSAND active chemicals in cigarette smoke! Can someone please tell me if my idea is plausible.
Thanks,
jeremy
So I started looking through the additives a little more, and then looking at some common drug syntheses. Now I am not asking for a drug synthesis, but I really think that tobacco products are taking advantage of the additives, the heat caused by burning the tobacco, and the pressure created when inhaling.
So, since I am no where near as well versed as I hope anyone in this ADD section, I only have a simple way to relate what I am trying to say. If any of you are familiar with anabolic steroids, you'd see that after they were made illegal, a nice alternative called prohormones (or prosteroids) came onto the market. These prohormones utilized the body's ability to convert a legal substance into an illegal anabolic steroid... but the conversion was optimized by the body's natural enzymes.
What my question is, is it possible that the additives in nicotine are really just synthesizing a new drug, causing the true addiction to cigarettes and such? I looked at one of the syntheses for amphetamine, and noticed that it is possible to use cinnamaldehyde (not going to elaborate, again this isn't for a synthesis tutorial or for help, just curious). I saw that a lot of chemicals that can be optimized in this reaction for making amphetamine via cinnamaldehyde have similar counterparts (or so it appeared to me) that are also present in cigarettes. So would it be possible to make an analogue of amphetamine (or another phenethylamine) and have the body turn it into a more potent/addictive substance?
All right, so here is a link for the 599 additives in cigarettes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_additives_in_cigarettes, yet they claim that there are FOUR THOUSAND active chemicals in cigarette smoke! Can someone please tell me if my idea is plausible.
Thanks,
jeremy

