Science finds Nicotine Enormously Helpful to Humans

Oh just to be clear nicotine all by itself no matter how you get it in your body is harmful.

....However, medical researchers have begun to show interest in one of the most reviled components of cigarettes -- nicotine. And they're interested in this potent, powerfully addictive substance for its health benefits.....


....Over the past decade, new research has taught us more about how nicotine affects the brain and the body. Some of it is good news -- for example, a lower incidence of Alzheimer's disease in smokers. Research has pointed to a compound called acetylcholine as the reason. Nicotine is structurally similar to acetylcholine, a naturally-occurring compound that serves as a neurotransmitter. Nicotine binds to nerve receptors and makes nerve cells fire more frequently.....

n 2000, a study performed at Stanford revealed surprising results about nicotine's effects on blood vessels. Contrary to popular opinion, the study showed that nicotine actually boosts the growth of new blood vessels. The discovery may lead to new treatments for diabetes. Many people with severe diabetes experience poor circulation, which can lead to gangrene and ultimately, limb amputation.....

In 2006, Duke scientists found that people with depression who were treated with nicotine patches reported a decrease in their depressive feelings. The results were perhaps not surprising for a drug associated with imparting a "buzz." However, the research also showed a direct link between nicotine and an increase in the release of dopamine and serotonin, two vital neurotransmitters. A lack of dopamine or serotonin is a common cause of depression. ....

http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/drugs-alcohol/nicotine-health-benefits.htm

The thing is, when you smoke near me, you also increase MY odds of developing cancer, heart disease, COPD, or asthma. I don't recall giving you my permission to imperil my health because of your voluntary addiction.

Here are the real facts from the CDC that anyone who decided to be a smoker should know.

Doesn't work that way. You're the public nuisance, not me.

I see no reaslon to "suck it up" when you're doing something that the vast majority of people in this country find unpleasant, injurious to their health, and invasive of their space

o the sanctimonious superstition that there can be no smoke without death. Reputable scientists admit this. On Desert Island Discs in 2001, Sir Richard Doll, the man who proved the incontrovertible causal link between active smoking and lung cancer, said: "The effect of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me."

He was right not to fret. One of the largest studies of the health consequences of secondary smoking was published in the British Medical Journal in 2003. It tracked the health of 118,000 Californians over four decades in a rigorous attempt to identify a causal relationship between environmental tobacco smoke (the scientific term for secondary smoke) and premature death. It concluded: "The results do not support a causal relationship between ETS and tobacco-related mortality."

That caused a nasty row. Anti-smoking campaigners condemned the research as "biased" and "unreliable". The anti-smoking charity Action on Smoking and Health (Ash) declared. "This could be very damaging as it will be used by industry lobbyists to argue against laws to ban smoking in public places and workplaces." And Ash was not alone in being concerned about the threat posed to its ambitions by scientific honesty. The venerable BMJ found itself under attack from all sides.

Publication provoked a barrage of condemnation in which the then BMJ editor Dr Richard Smith was accused of every failing from naivety to active promotion of evil. His accusers demanded that he withdraw the article. To his credit, Smith refused, pointing out that the BMJ exists to publish science not polemic, and that the American study was proper, peer-reviewed science. A robust and persuasive anti-smoker, he replied that although the BMJ was "passionately anti-tobacco" it was not "anti-science". He went on to explain that "the question [of whether passive smoking kills] has not been definitively answered."

Doctors and scientists who make such statements come under extraordinary pressure to withdraw them. Three years later, Dr Smith appeared to be satisfied that passive smoking does kill. Doll was persuaded to emphasise that his lack of concern about secondary smoking was a purely personal perspective. The tragedy, for those who care about truth, reason and scientific method, is that it was not. Profound scepticism about the claim that secondary smoking kills is the only rationally tenable position. Look beyond the lazy political and media consensus that simply assumes that because smoking kills secondary smoking must as well, and the evidence is overwhelming.

When I interviewed her in 2004, Amanda Sandford of Ash acknowledged unintentionally that much secondary smoking science is unscientific. She said: "A lot of the studies that have been done on passive smoking produce results that are not statistically significant according to conventional analysis." In plain English, that means that if secondary smoking were not already the focus of a torrent of moral sanctimony, few reputable scientists would dare to assert that it causes lung cancer, heart disease or any of the other life-threatening conditions with which it is routinely associated.

Dr Ken Denson, a medical professional who is prepared say what others only think, puts it more bluntly: "The ill effects of passive smoking are still intuition rather than scientific fact... All in all, the medical evidence for any deleterious effect of passive smoking is extremely tenuous and it is unlikely that it would ever stand up in a court of law.

washingtonpost.com > Health U.S. Details Dangers of Secondhand Smoking
'Serious Health Hazard' Is Cited

By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Secondhand smoke dramatically increases the risk of heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmokers and can be controlled only by making indoor spaces smoke-free, according to a comprehensive report issued yesterday by U.S. Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona.

"The health effects of secondhand smoke exposure are more pervasive than we previously thought," Carmona said. "The scientific evidence is now indisputable: Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance. It is a serious health hazard that can lead to disease and premature death in children and nonsmoking adults."

According to the report, the government's most detailed statement ever on secondhand smoke, exposure to smoke at home or work increases the nonsmokers' risk of developing heart disease by 25 to 30 percent and lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent. It is especially dangerous for children living with smokers and is known to cause sudden infant death syndrome, respiratory problems, ear infections and asthma attacks in infants and children.

Another thing that I find fascinating is that we are developing a good science indication that what really kills is smoking into old age, that those who give it up early enough dont have much potential life lost at all. I would like to see this developed more, it could be that we can enjoy smoking for 30 years, then give it up, and be almost as fine as the never smoked.

No, because now all those who claimed that smoking helped them to maintain their desired weight have had their claims documented by science. And as I said, all those who claimed that Nicotine adds nothing to the health of the body have been proven wrong.

People are not interested in the benefits of smoking as it doesn't fit their narrow minded jealousy and irrational hatred of a person who finds smoking a pleasant and relaxing pass time, the fact that smoking helps reduce stress and anxiety of a person is by far one of the biggest advantages of it.

For the vast majority of non-smokers, I don't think it has to do with "irrational hatred" so much as smokers sharing the unpleasant aspects of the practice with those who don't enjoy it. The smell of smoke is unpleasant, it is a respirtory irritant to those with breathing issues, it stains clothing and furniture, etc. I don't think non-smokers have any issues with smokers enjoying a cigarette as long as it doesn't intrude on them.

Nicotine has both positive and negative effects on humans