4 ms·

Several pharmaceutical companies are working on drugs that target nicotine receptors in the brain, in the hope that they can replicate the cognitive uptick that

Several pharmaceutical companies are working on drugs that target nicotine receptors in the brain, in the hope that they can replicate the cognitive uptick that smokers get from cigarettes. I can't count how many articles/studies/editorials I've seen on this topic in the past year. Here's the bottom line: Nicotine works. Caffeine too. Let me ask you this: Why is it that Nicotine consumption is a globally universal trend? While it doesn't qualify as biological evolution, societies must compete with each other, and apparently those where nicotine consumption is socially acceptable are winning. Of course, this should be obvious. It's a stimulant. It keeps you awake, alert, and focused (and was, consequently, distributed freely to WWI and WWII armies). On top of that, aside from slightly decreased athletic endurance, it's only major down-side doesn't even factor in if you don't care about living past 55-60. Considering that, even non-tobacco users didn't have hope of doing much better then that until recently, tobacco is a net win. In other words, this isn't a new trend. It's a search for a safe tobacco alternative.

anigbrowl 18y ago
apparently those where nicotine consumption is socially acceptable are winning Nicotine consumption is at least as acceptable in poor or slowly developing countries as in well-developed ones. Lots of people smoke in Egypt, Greece, and France, but none of those countries is a trailblazing economy. France has many virtues, but is arguably excessively paternalistic. Sure, you do have a point. I just had a cigarette, so I am in no position to argue :-) That said, at 38 I'm painfully aware of the deleterious effects of smoking for the last 2 decades and unable to be flippant about this. On a broader level, it's worth considering that something like 40-50% of tobacco sales in the US are made to mentally ill people, who find chemical relief therein, but aren't necessarily better off from doing so. One might, with equal or greater historical basis, argue for the success of tea-drinking societies. Or marijuana. The bottom line is that the most productive people in society will find ways to leverage productivity out of drugs as much as anything else, while the least productive will substitute the feeling for the practice.
- jballanc 18y ago
  * Lots of people smoke in Egypt, Greece, and France, but none of those countries is a trailblazing economy.* You're not thinking like an evolutionary biologist. Sure, poor societies smoke same as successful ones, but where are the largely non-smoking societies? (...and no, the US doesn't count, seeing as how the anti-smoking movement is only a couple decades old) I'm not saying that smoking is a cure-all (HA!). What I'm saying is that, in the past, smoking seems to have been better than not. What's interesting is that, now that life past 60 is a very real possibility for some societies, will smoking still remain advantageous. Here, I would agree with you, that the answer is probably no.
  - anamax 18y ago
    > What's interesting is that, now that life past 60 is a very real possibility for some societies, will smoking still remain advantageous. Or folks will start smoking later in life....
- anamax 18y ago
  > On a broader level, it's worth considering that something like 40-50% of tobacco sales in the US are made to mentally ill people, who find chemical relief therein, but aren't necessarily better off from doing so. You say that like it's a bad thing. Perfection is rarely an option. Instead, people get to choose between what's available to them and "chemical relief" beats their alternatives. It's not like someone is going to solve their mental problems if they'd quit smoking.
  - anigbrowl 18y ago
    Well, I do feel it's a bad thing. Cigarettes are so far down the scale of drug delivery methods that I feel we have an obligation to do better. Surely something similar to an asthma inhaler that delivered a hit of nicotine or similar would not be too expensive to develop, and could provide mental relief without the same physical costs. Obviously, I have a chip on my shoulder about these issues; you're not wrong, I'd just like see a better ange of therapeutic options.

anigbrowl 18y ago

apparently those where nicotine consumption is socially acceptable are winning Nicotine consumption is at least as acceptable in poor or slowly developing countries as in well-developed ones. Lots of people smoke in Egypt, Greece, and France, but none of those countries is a trailblazing economy. France has many virtues, but is arguably excessively paternalistic. Sure, you do have a point. I just had a cigarette, so I am in no position to argue :-) That said, at 38 I'm painfully aware of the deleterious effects of smoking for the last 2 decades and unable to be flippant about this. On a broader level, it's worth considering that something like 40-50% of tobacco sales in the US are made to mentally ill people, who find chemical relief therein, but aren't necessarily better off from doing so. One might, with equal or greater historical basis, argue for the success of tea-drinking societies. Or marijuana. The bottom line is that the most productive people in society will find ways to leverage productivity out of drugs as much as anything else, while the least productive will substitute the feeling for the practice.

jballanc 18y ago
* Lots of people smoke in Egypt, Greece, and France, but none of those countries is a trailblazing economy.* You're not thinking like an evolutionary biologist. Sure, poor societies smoke same as successful ones, but where are the largely non-smoking societies? (...and no, the US doesn't count, seeing as how the anti-smoking movement is only a couple decades old) I'm not saying that smoking is a cure-all (HA!). What I'm saying is that, in the past, smoking seems to have been better than not. What's interesting is that, now that life past 60 is a very real possibility for some societies, will smoking still remain advantageous. Here, I would agree with you, that the answer is probably no.
- anamax 18y ago
  > What's interesting is that, now that life past 60 is a very real possibility for some societies, will smoking still remain advantageous. Or folks will start smoking later in life....
anamax 18y ago
> On a broader level, it's worth considering that something like 40-50% of tobacco sales in the US are made to mentally ill people, who find chemical relief therein, but aren't necessarily better off from doing so. You say that like it's a bad thing. Perfection is rarely an option. Instead, people get to choose between what's available to them and "chemical relief" beats their alternatives. It's not like someone is going to solve their mental problems if they'd quit smoking.
- anigbrowl 18y ago
  Well, I do feel it's a bad thing. Cigarettes are so far down the scale of drug delivery methods that I feel we have an obligation to do better. Surely something similar to an asthma inhaler that delivered a hit of nicotine or similar would not be too expensive to develop, and could provide mental relief without the same physical costs. Obviously, I have a chip on my shoulder about these issues; you're not wrong, I'd just like see a better ange of therapeutic options.