Talk:Nicotine

Tobacco vs nicotine

Much of this page has to do with Tobacco and smoking - not Nicotine. Many of the health effects listed are either not differentiated or not related to nicotine. I suggest that much of that information be moved to tobacco and smoking and a single link be left. More information about nicotine alone would be nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.245.153.165 (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. While it would be nice to have separate research on each, the simple fact is that tobacco is the number one delivery system for nicotine by a long shot. As a result, there is bound to be overlap and imprecision, but more than that, the bulk of studies relating to the effects of nicotine are likely going to be bound up in research covering its primary delivery vehicle. If you spot references or sections that are clearly unrelated to nicotine, by all means edit away. But I think removing data that comes from studies that relate to nicotine that is delivered via tobacco would impoverish the article to no good end. Now, if some of the information here is lacking from the corresponding tobacco related articles, by all means copy it to those articles; while gross duplication is generally to be avoided, some situations do not improve by a slavish adherence to this principle. I would argue this is such a situation. Apophenian Alchemy (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Nicotine, Vitamins?

This actually kinda goes with the question under mine. Niacin (also called Nicotinic Acid according to Wikipedia), is both in Tobacco and it is a metabolite of nicotine according to my research. I also doubt the effects of nicotine as a stimulant.

I haven't been able to find anything personally, but from personal experience, when I smoke a cigarette and it's not well lit it seems to have more similar effect to Carbon Monoxide poisoning (reference wikipedia) than to a stimulant, but it also seems to have some effects similar to cleaning your system with Niacin.

my question is, does Nicotine take the place of the B3 vitamins (considering the term vitamin encompasses multiple chemicals), and it's "stimulant" effects come from over use (abuse) of what the vitamin does, and does this so called "addiction" just come from having lower vitamin levels than your body is used to because you've been taking Nicotine and it's been "supplementing" (building a tolerance) your vitamin intake to extremely high levels building a tolerance to this vitamin.

My doctor told me to take flushing type niacin to help quit smoking. it helped. i don't know the mechanics of it though. - Stillwaterising (talk) 09:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Is Nicotine the Addictive Component in Tobacco Smoke?

See also: "addictivity of nicotine" below. Perhaps merge. There is a glaring contradiction in this article about if nicotine is addictive or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.45.4 (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

smoking is a very deadly thing and you shouldn't ever start smoking.

Hello. I tried to argue against this point in the article but it was removed (poorly cited, ok I could have done better and biased/non-neutral, which I don't agree with as this suggests that any evidence to the contrary is unacceptable). There is a large body of evidence to support the idea that nicotine is not the addictive component of tobacco smoke (by the way, I don't smoke or support tobacco consumption, cigarettes are just as deadly whether or not nicotine is the reason they are addictive).

The point is, if there is another (or several) compound(s) that are the main cause then our research into nicotine to cure tobacco addiction is wrong and will therefore affect tobacco sales (increase them).

Most original papers that utilised nicotine used concentrations that were far too high compared to a cigarette puff or even an entire cigarette. Delivery methods did not remotely reflect smoking inhalation.

I don't want to be the champion of this cause but it is a major point that must be addressed in the article immediately.

No, without some good references, it does not need to be addressed in the article. If there is a large body of evidence to support the idea that nicotine is not the addictive component of tobacco usage, then it should be easy to find. Alternately, there is a large body of evidence to support the idea that nicotine (at levels provided by cigarettes) is addictive. And there is strong evidence that nicotine replacement helps break the addictiveness of cigarettes. [1] (There may be other ingredients that are also addictive; I haven't looked for evidence for or against that idea.) Astgtciv (talk) 14:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Given that chewing tobacco is just as, if not more addictive than cigarettes, logic would dictate the addictive component(s) must be shared by both habits. Nicotine is the primary chemical they both have in common. But the strongest evidence supporting the addictive properties of nicotine is the fact that nicotine patches (which administer only nicotine) function to reduce or eliminate cravings associated with smoking/chewing.
--K10wnsta (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This may sound ridiculous, but what about heightened levels of carbon monoxide/dioxide. Some effects of cigarettes seem to be synonymous with carbon monoxide poisoning.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.67.84.120 (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Psychoactive effects section

this section has no sources, and makes big claims (in my opinion strongly biased).someone please improve this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.164.127.140 (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

<<= Response from "ElectronicCosmos" ==>> I have a belief in what this section is saying, I definitely interpret that smoking keeps me cool in a work environment that can certainly make individuals psychotic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electroniccosmos (talk • contribs) 06:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Contradicting claims

This section claims that the nicotine's psychoactive profile varies from stimulating to sedative with the increasing dosage. However, this source is cited on Tobacco Smoking, which claims the opposite.

"Studies have suggested that low doses have a depressant effect, while higher doses have stimulant effect."

Also, it appears that the such claims made in "Psychoactive effects" section on Nicotine are devoid of any sources.--Igorhb (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

half Life.

i suggeest we expand notes on the halflife of nicotine, what does this do to the substance? how does it change exactly, are any properties different? am i completely wrong in my questioning and there is just less of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.112.51 (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This is about biological half time. For example, when you smoke a cigar, the nicotine level on your blood rises. After the half time has passed (which is 2 hours for nicotine), the nicotine level of your blood is halved. Get it? It's not the same kind of half time that we use in psychics. Yeah. There's just less of it.

--91.154.52.137 (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Can someone explain why something would be processed in this way? I mean, with alcohol, your liver can process, say, 1 drink per hour.. meaning such-and-such-milliliters-of-alcohol-per-hour.. but here with nicotine you're saying ANY amount will be halved in 2 hours, then halved again in 2 more hours.. uh.. what? Surely the organs process it at a particular rate, and if it takes 2 hours for, say, 80 milligrams, it'll take another 2 hours to get the remaining 80 mg.... right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

First off, peak nicotine blood concentration is achieved in about 10 minuties and the halflife is only 20 minuties. The reason for the different times of drug elimination from the body is because, unlike alcohol(which is much slower), nicotine enters the blood and reaches the brain in about 7 seconds. The ease and quickness of nicotine to enter blood and circulate around the body to filter organs like the liver and kidneys is the reason the halflife is short. --Dam59 (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Controlled Substances Act.

Why isn't nicotine on the DEA schedule? Couldn't one make a case against the government, that by failing to include nicotine in the list it makes them liable? Or maybe one could argue that because nicotine is not on the list drug x, y, and z should also not be on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.214.11.170 (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not general discussion or advocacy regarding the topic. see WP:FORUM. google is your friend, and general forums are your friend. or, write your congressperson. this page, however, is not where to find your answer. Anastrophe (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The DEA, ha! Your talking about the same biased clowns that continue to say that cannabis has no medical value in the face of overwhelming evidence. DEA be held liable for not scheduling nicotine, ha! Give me a break. multiple lolz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.234.131.185 (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The question to me is Is there a Wikipedia article which in any sense answers the question Why isn't nicotine on the DEA schedule??
Laurel Bush (talk) 11:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

First synthesis

• The first synthesis is 1893-1904, depending on which article on nicotine you read.
• I remebmer that there is a publication stating that the first synthesis yielded the R-nicotine not the natural S-nicotine

This needs clearification. --12:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Apparently, Tanya was here. Not for long. AlexRochon (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Link to Circulatory Disease

Looking at http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/Factsheets/health_effects.htm, it would appear that

1. Fielding JE, Husten CG, Eriksen MP. Tobacco: Health Effects and Control. In: Maxcy KF, Rosenau MJ, Last JM, Wallace RB, Doebbling BN (eds.). Public Health and Preventive Medicine. New York: McGraw-Hill;1998;817–845 [cited 2006 Dec 5]

would have information on the links to circulatory disease. 74.126.10.211 (talk) 04:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Aren't there a lot of substances in tobacco besides nicotine? That seems like a link to tobacco, as opposed specifically to nicotine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.89.228 (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Smoking reduces probability of AD onset

I take issue with the reference supporting this particular statement: it comes from a rabidly pro-smoking site called forces.org, and the large majority of the studies it cites have a sample population of less than 200; the only large one, with close to 4000, has no controls, and was based on questionnaires. Since the compiler is obviously biased, one can't rely on her to have considered studies and reports that don't support her conclusion, which is, in fact, what she did not do. No less importantly, almost all the studies are rather old, done between the 60's and 80's. But I am not going to remove these references, as I don't want to get into a paste-cut war with the true believer who put them in there. I will point to four very recent articles citing studies with relatively large samples that disprove the conclusions of . Lavidia (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't wish to be labeled by anybody as "rabidly pro-smoking", but it appears to me that your conclusions that these studies can be labeled irrelevant based on the fact that some of them were conducted in previous decades seems in itself biased. Does there mere age somehow mean that there findings should be ignored? Does it mean that other, newer studies could not reach the same conclusions or contradict the four studies that you cited? After all, there is nothing unusual about different studies reaching conflicting conclusions (this is common). This page, as part of a neutral encyclopedia, should be debticated to providing all findings (positive, nuetral, and negative) about the drug in question. Metalhead1994 —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Nicotine therapy link

In the Further Reading section of the article, there was a reference to an article by a freelance science journalist that cites studies but largely ignores the issue of sample populations and methods used. As with the Alzheimer's studies pointed above, the few ones she cites have very small sample populations. Also, she focuses on ADHD, but goes on to gloss over studies about other diseases that could be treated with nicotine. A link in the same section,to a Guardian article on nicotine therapy, was dead, so I removed it. Lavidia (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC) [User:Admrilbubba|Admrilbubba]] (talk) 09:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)The mention of individuals with schizophrenia smoking for the nicotine benefit is true but an incomplete. As a supervisor for a program in a mental heath agency who’s goal was to help mental health clients obtain employment,then go on to living as independently as they able. Our behavioral plans usually included a goal to cut back in their smoking. We did recognize the chemical elements,mostly nicotine was a therapeutic agent. One aspect was the pharmacological benefits, the mixture of their daily medication with the chemicals,most of which was nicotine helped calmed the symptoms of their disease. The other part smoking played was the passing of time in a boring world. Many prior to a work program sat for hours watching TV, staring out a window watching the grass grow. The Cigarette put something in their hand that required action and reaction from the individual. The nicotine helped them mellow out,it was self-medication. We noticed a drastic drop in how much nicotine they consumed after going to work. At work the amount of time they could smoke was a very limited and they were using their hands and minds on a matter other than boredom from watching grass grow. In the first week we did note behavior flexing but with passing of time, that element lessened and sometimes disappeared.To further substantiate the link of nicotine and schizophrenia as a therapeutic agent, I noticed a comparison of Developmentally Disabled and those with Mental Illness; and the subset,those who have schizophrenia. These two major groups 'MI" and 'DD' are the primary groups we worked with, of which are many subset groups. The ‘DD’ seldom smoke, were as the majority of schizophrenia clients did smoke. I was amazed to realize the majority of DD folks who also had schizophrenia smoked as well. I also realized a majority who had some other subset mental health issues smoked as well. These observations have taught me to agree with the author believing the reality of Nicotine is an aid for the relief of the schizophrenia symptoms and is also a calming agent giving aid for hours.True too is the action of self medication. Rev.Cantrell,B 24 Sept 09 0530hr.

added a citation to the original scientific publication relating to reduced risk of kaposis sarcoma as to provide better context than the associated press interview, put the section on BRCA gene breast cancer risk on a new paragraphso as to seperate it form the kaposis sarcoma section,and added that kaposis sarcoma is HIV related, this may not have been obvious to people with limited medical knowledge. Jimmy joe joeseph (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

One aspect of the schizophrenia/nicotine self-medication comments in the article is a complete absence of reference to smoking levels in other psychiatric groups, but especially to that of patients with depression. It's reasonably well known that rates of smoking are higher in patients with depression and depressive episodes, too. While this likely constitutes OR, I can't help but remark that depression is a large part of the clinical picture of the progression of schizophrenia; it's possible that the prominent negative symptoms of schizophrenia might masquerade as depressive symptoms, I don't know. I believe, though don't know off the top of my head, that smoking rates are higher in many psychiatric populations. My experience is largely as a patient with chronic depression, as a part of schizo-affective disorder, so that's where my familiarity lies. The above commenter seems to suggest that part of the increased smoking rates may be explained by boredom (nicotine is known to increase one's ability to attend to long, boring tasks), but I'm skeptical of such folksy explanations. I would like some documentation before such a claim finds its way into the article. I would like to see this aspect of the article expanded to include both nicotine and smoking's relationship to depressed populations (in addition to ADHD, Parkinson's, etc.), and also to include its relevance to psychiatric populations as a whole. Alas, I hope somebody else is willing. I am not. Apophenian Alchemy (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

"Interactions" section needed

Nicotine interacts with many other drugs that are used medicinally or otherwise. For instance, the following study is about its interactions with citalopram and reboxetine. (Andreasen JT, Redrobe JP. Nicotine, but not mecamylamine, enhances antidepressant-like effects of citalopram and reboxetine in the mouse forced swim and tail suspension tests. Behav Brain Res. 2008 Aug 22. PMID: 18786574). Holt's book "Food and Drug Interactions" also lists many drug-drug interactions for nicotine. Fuzzform (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

--Admrilbubba (talk) 09:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)The mention of individuals with schizophrenia smoking for the nicotine benefit is true but an incomplete. As a supervisor for a program in a mental heath agency who’s goal was to put mental health clients to work,then on to living as independently as they could. Our behavioral plans usually included a goal to cut back in their smoking. We did recognize the chemical elements,mostly nicotine were a therapeutic agent. One aspect was the pharmacological benefits, the mixture of their daily medication with the chemicals,most of which was nicotine helped calmed the symptoms of their disease. The other part smoking played was the passing of time in a boring world. Many prior to a work program sat for hours watching TV, staring out a window watching the grass grow. The Cigarette puts something in their hand that required action and reaction from the individual. The nicotine helped them mellow out,it was self-medication. There was a drastic drop in how much nicotine they consumed after going to work. At work the amount time they could smoke was a very limited. In the first week we did note behavior flexing and with passing of time, even that seem to disappear.To further substantiate the link of nicotine and schizophrenia as a therapeutic agent, note a comparison of Developmentally Disabled and those with schizophrenia . This was the two primary groups we worked with and they are the two major groups out of which come many subset groups. The ‘DD’ seldom smoke were as the schizophrenia clients did. I was amazed at the DD folks who also had schizophrenia did smoke,and those who had some other mental health issues did so as well. From that observation I stand with what I believe to be the truth Nicotine is an aid for the relief of the schizophrenia symptoms and is also a calming agent giving aid for hours Rev.Cantrell,B 24 Sept 09 0530hr

'Liquid Smoking'

Would this article be a good place to mention 'Liquid Smoking' a cigarette replacement drink. It would be interesting to know what herb it is based on. Several articles say it contains 15% nicotine. I don't think so! http://news.google.co.uk/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn&ncl=1262995256&topic=m 78.146.120.145 (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, 'Liquid Smoking' products are marketed as an 'alternative' to smoking tobacco. However, few (if any) contain any nicotine. Also, that link is now broken, but a quick websearch is all you need to find more info. Personally, I think it's a load of rubbish, and reccoment an e-cigarette for it's marketed effects. Elcaballooscuro (talk) 10:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Other intake routes

Should Snus be a reason to add a new intake route, as it is not really smoked, insufflated nor chewed, rather absorbed though skin. Should an additional route "absorbed" be added? (Johan8x (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC))

Is these a valid source?

I'm trying to compell sources to the paragraph History and name, and therefore asks the above question (especially regarding the second one): Jack E. Henningfield; Mitch Zeller (2006). ""Nicotine psychopharmacology", research contributions to United States and global tobacco regulation: A look back and a look forward" (PDF). 184 (3–4): 286–291. doi:10.1007/s00213-006-0308-4. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) and http://medicolegal.tripod.com/toxicchemicals.htm Comptes rendus, 1903, 137, p 860

Gsmgm (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Toxicology!

Please see the link to this study: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0004849 this study provides strong evidence that nicotine causes upregulation of the FOXM1 gene, which is linked to cell mutation. Overexpression of FOXM1 is associated with many forms of cancer, and the study specifically demonstrates the upexpression of FOXM1 in cancerous and precancerous oral tissues, while also reproducibly demonstrating nicotine's upexpression of FOXM1. An editor must provide a sentence discussing this finding on the nicotine page. I have been considering switching to electronic cigarettes and had relied on the wiki page and its assertions that nicotine has not been found carcinogenic! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.228.189 (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Only a study demonstrating increased cancer rates in real people who use unadulterated nicotine or who use another substance that leads to FOXM1 expression can constitute "strong evidence". Even though FOXM1 expression causes cancer formation, external factors that express FOXM1 may potentially mitigate FOXM1 mutagenesis through other mechanisms. The language the researchers used indicates clearly that this potential carcinogenic mechanism is speculative in nature and requires further study. 71.96.225.98 (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The primary source indicating nicotine's mutagenicity no longer exists. I rather hoped to find out just how dangerous nicotine alone is, but unsourced information might as well originate from an acid trip. Can anyone find a new source? 71.96.225.98 (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

What primary source are you talking about? What is it that no longer exists? Looie496 (talk) 18:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The sphere model

Someone please verify (because I am no chemistry expert) the sphere model for nicotine that is shown in the right hand side portal. The line drawing suggests that hydrogen atom is coming out of the paper which means that the pentagon ring should point away from screen in the sphere model that is shown. a 14:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Dependence and withdrawal

This statement: "Due to an increase in reward pathway sensitivity, nicotine withdrawal is relatively mild compared to alcohol or heroin withdrawal." in the Dependence and withdrawal section seems to contradict other topics in the article. Also I cant find any source that refers to nicotine withdrawal as "mild", "relatively" or otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amzran (talk • contribs) 20:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm just looking at this article for the first time. There are lots of poorly worded sentences here, and this is one of them, but I think it's basically correct. It's not so much that nicotine withdrawal is mild in an absolute sense as that heroin withdrawal is utter unendurable misery while alcohol withdrawal can actually be fatal in extreme cases. Looie496 (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This entire section is very poorly written. Certain sentences are entirely nonsensical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.204.217 (talk) 08:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

History

Following this book (pag 115) nicotine has been isolated first time in 1807 by Gaspare Cerioli and in 1809 by Louis-Nicolas Vauquelin, twenty years before Posselt and Reimann. --150.146.18.34 (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Chemistry section

The text reads: its vapors will combust at 308 K (35 °C; 95 °F) in air despite a low vapor pressure.
Nicotine's MSDS on erowid.org gives a Flash point of 95°C and Auto-ignition temperature: 240°C. Someone should maybe verify all the data? 81.165.78.108 (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Nicotine smokeless filters, are they harmful? I called smoke assist, and confirmed they sell two types of filter; one that contain 21mg of nicotine, and another has zero.

I am concerned that the nicotine filter may harm my family through the vapor that is released.

Will 2nd hand vapors vapors harm my children.

I appreciate all the volunteer whom help wikipedia provide impportant information to the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.24.215 (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

addictivity of nicotine

There seems to be a strong contradiction regarding the addictivity of nicotine.

In the section "Psychoactive effects" it is stated that

"Technically, nicotine is not significantly addictive, as nicotine administered alone does not produce significant reinforcing properties.[44]"

while in the withdrawal section it is claimed that

"In many studies [nicotine] has been shown to be more addictive than cocaine and heroin.[49][50][51]"

This issue should be resolved, since they are total in opposition of each other. The latter statement is backed up by primarily New York Times articles, which are more about the general addiction of smoking, then nicotine in particular. Furthermore, are NYT articles "scientifical" enough for using it as a reference, regarding the strict psychoactive and addictive properties of nicotine? Latrocinia (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like this page was written by a tobacco corporation. G Fawkes. --201.230.85.196 (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

potential NicVAX resource

New Help for Smokers An anti-nicotine vaccine is moving closer to regulatory approval By Jeneen Interlandi Scientific American September 6, 2011

99.181.147.68 (talk) 06:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Nicotine Sulfate

In the introduction it says that nicotine is used as a pesticide. Reference [4] from the Denver master Gardener website says that it is nicotine sulfate which is used as a pesticide. Are these two chemicals synonymous, or should this be changed? Prymal (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

"Side-Effects" Poster

This seems to be more anti-smoking propaganda than actual side-effects of nicotine. It lists only negative effects (and extremes, at that -- I don't know of anyone having diarrhea from smoking), without giving so much as a nod to neutral or positive effects of nicotine. (Also, joint pain? Abnormal dreams? This entire poster is obviously anti-smoking propaganda; should find a more reliable source -- erowid?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.245.107 (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this image seems very biased towards showing only the negative effects of the drug. 71.169.187.76 (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I became suspicious reading that nicotine is a carcinogen, which is news to me, a smoker and now ecig vaper and many of those who chew nicotine gum licensed as a drug. I looked back at the the talk history and foundd this point has been raised before. Shame, but I now bracket this page with the passive smoking page - an outlet for crazy anti tobacco propaganda.(130.88.123.137 (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC))

Health effects

How come there is no content about nicotine health effects? In most drugs there is thorough information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F06:423:F004:0:0:567E:6229 (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

There isn't? I see extensive sections entitled "Pharmacology", "Psychoactive effects", "Dependence and withdrawal", "Toxicology", and "Therapeutic uses". DMacks (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Response - Look at it this way; if you drink coffee, the main stimulant is Caffeine. It is strange, but somehow coffee and tobacco produce the same health effects. However, smoking tobacco products can cause various types of cancer and health disease. Not to mention the negative "cardiac" consequences that both Caffine and Nicotine can affect the human body. Personally, this is what I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.129.194 (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Chemical Synthesis

No such information is present in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.129.194 (talk) 13:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Redundant, fragmented, and confusing grammar

I'll try and be brief and apologize in advance for any formatting mistakes as this is my first post of any kind in the Wikipedia system. I was sent to this article and while I was reading, specifically in the second paragraph of the "Dependence and Withdrawal" section, I noticed the following:

" Like other physically addictive drugs, nicotine withdrawal causes down-regulation of the production of dopamine and other stimulatory neurotransmitters as the brain attempts to compensate for artificial stimulation. As dopamine regulates the sensitivity of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors decreases. To compensate for this compensatory mechanism, the brain in turn upregulates the number of receptors, convoluting its regulatory effects with compensatory mechanisms meant to counteract other compensatory mechanisms "

This may or may not be accurate as I am not an expert on nicotine. However, this passage is worded poorly enough that I felt the need to point it out so that someone might make it clearer. The second sentence is either a fragment or the verb tense for the word decrease might be incorrect, I'm not sure which; the opening to the sentence that follows is redundant enough that I had to read it several times. Compensatory is used three times, and compensate also used once; upregulates and regulatory are both used, and the word mechanism or its plural are used three times. I do not feel qualified to make any edits because I may be misunderstanding the passage in advance.

Please take the time to address this, as I likely will not personally do so. I hope that the passage may ultimately be improved so as to be more understandable and in line with the quality that as a more-or-less average user, I tend to expect from Wikipedia.

Ethertonm (talk) 02:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)