16 ms·

What about chewing tobacco? All smokeless tobacco has risks of cancer. I would not say that nicotine is harmless without a large amount of proof, and it should

What about chewing tobacco? All smokeless tobacco has risks of cancer. I would not say that nicotine is harmless without a large amount of proof, and it should take about as much proof to say that it is not a carcinogen.

mistercow 9y ago
There's actually been a lot of research on nicotine, and the conclusion is that it's _slightly_ carcinogenic. But more to the point, there was little reason to believe it would cause cancer in the first place, compared to any other random compound. Its association with tobacco is a wash, because other compounds, like aldehydes, are completely sufficient to explain the carcinogenicity of smoking tobacco.
DanBC 9y ago
The US surgeon general has a really nice, fucking long, document about tobacco. Everything in it is evidenced by as much research as they can get. https://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/50-years-of-progress/sgr50-chap-12.pdf https://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/50-years-of-p... I agree that it's a bad idea to take nicotine in any form unless you need to, but it seems that nicotine is one of the less harmful parts of tobacco. For chewing tobacco it's probably not the nicotine that's causing cancer, but all the other stuff.
posterboy 9y ago
Nicotine is a neurotoxin. I'm sure it's fine though, as long as you didn't need your neurons anyway.
- cgag 9y ago
  Weird how it makes you perform better on mental tasks though
  - mikeash 9y ago
    Aren't there a lot of drugs which enhance performance in the short term but are harmful in the long term?
    - posterboy 9y ago
      That would be a paradox resolution. I suggest to likewise think of the short term effect as harm, so the long term effect is the accumulated harm. Just like a light hit on the head would increase awareness, but increasing the force and repetition of the hits on the head is not well advised, when the effect wears off after overuse - to say nothing about the immediate effect of getting hit. The perceived short term benefits are only secondary effects. And with regards to nicotine, all the arguments in favor are to be treated as extraordinary claims. I wonder how the testing methodology works.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
PeterisP 9y ago
Tobacco is full of really carcinogenic stuff other than nicotine. For analysis of nicotine as such, you can refer to the known side-effects of nicotine dermal patches; they're well researched, approved by FDA, etc - the place of application can get skin irritation and itchiness; overdose of nicotine can get dizziness, headache, rapid heartbeat, and nausea (same as for too much nicotine through other means), but they're not known to cause cancer or other significant damage despite being used by very many people over very long time.

mistercow 9y ago

There's actually been a lot of research on nicotine, and the conclusion is that it's _slightly_ carcinogenic. But more to the point, there was little reason to believe it would cause cancer in the first place, compared to any other random compound. Its association with tobacco is a wash, because other compounds, like aldehydes, are completely sufficient to explain the carcinogenicity of smoking tobacco.

DanBC 9y ago

The US surgeon general has a really nice, fucking long, document about tobacco. Everything in it is evidenced by as much research as they can get. https://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/50-years-of-progress/sgr50-chap-12.pdf https://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/50-years-of-p... I agree that it's a bad idea to take nicotine in any form unless you need to, but it seems that nicotine is one of the less harmful parts of tobacco. For chewing tobacco it's probably not the nicotine that's causing cancer, but all the other stuff.

posterboy 9y ago

Nicotine is a neurotoxin. I'm sure it's fine though, as long as you didn't need your neurons anyway.

cgag 9y ago
Weird how it makes you perform better on mental tasks though
- mikeash 9y ago
  Aren't there a lot of drugs which enhance performance in the short term but are harmful in the long term?
  - posterboy 9y ago
    That would be a paradox resolution. I suggest to likewise think of the short term effect as harm, so the long term effect is the accumulated harm. Just like a light hit on the head would increase awareness, but increasing the force and repetition of the hits on the head is not well advised, when the effect wears off after overuse - to say nothing about the immediate effect of getting hit. The perceived short term benefits are only secondary effects. And with regards to nicotine, all the arguments in favor are to be treated as extraordinary claims. I wonder how the testing methodology works.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

PeterisP 9y ago

Tobacco is full of really carcinogenic stuff other than nicotine. For analysis of nicotine as such, you can refer to the known side-effects of nicotine dermal patches; they're well researched, approved by FDA, etc - the place of application can get skin irritation and itchiness; overdose of nicotine can get dizziness, headache, rapid heartbeat, and nausea (same as for too much nicotine through other means), but they're not known to cause cancer or other significant damage despite being used by very many people over very long time.