Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Nicotine Is the New Wonder Drug

Posted by kdawson on Tue Jul 10, 2007 06:53 AM
from the if-it-don't-kill-you-first dept.
Fantastic Lad sends us to Wired for a story on the upside of nicotine. Researchers are developing drugs based on nicotine that may prove beneficial for brains, bowels, blood vessels and immune systems. "Nicotine acts on the acetylcholine receptors in the brain, stimulating and regulating the release of a slew of brain chemicals, including seratonin, dopamine and norepinephrine. Now drugs derived from nicotine and the research on nicotine receptors are in clinical trials for everything from helping to heal wounds, to depression, schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, Tourette Syndrome, ADHD, anger management and anxiety." A separate story talks about nicotine warding off Parkinson's disease.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Suspicious at best. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by John Pfeiffer (454131) on Tuesday July 10 2007, @06:55AM (#19811447) Homepage
    This certainly sounds too good to be true. Makes me wonder who's funding the research.
    • by Timesprout (579035) on Tuesday July 10 2007, @06:59AM (#19811481)
      Phillip Morris Healthcare
        • Of course we can trust them! Their ads say so, and trustworthy people don't lie.
        • by itlurksbeneath (952654) on Tuesday July 10 2007, @09:34AM (#19812999) Journal
          The Mansons were a family too... They don't have many commercials, though.
          • Not Sure Why... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by severoon (536737) on Tuesday July 10 2007, @12:16PM (#19815305) Journal

            I'm not sure why this is so hard for some people to swallow. Most drugs that have such an obvious and strong effect on people and have been tested on millions with few adverse effects (all the bad effects of smoking come mostly from the smoke + chronic use—the nicotine merely makes it addictive) usually yield other valuable research output.

            I don't see any reason to let emotional value judgments get in the way of potentially valuable medical applications. Let's turn that frown upside down and make a negative into a positive!

            Disclaimer: No I'm not a drug company representative nor a smoking advocate.

    • by canUbeleiveIT (787307) on Tuesday July 10 2007, @07:04AM (#19811519)
      I guess that you're intimating that the cigarette companies are pushing this.

      I'm sure that it won't be administered via a cigarette because the delivery system is important too. In the case of cigarettes, the delivery mechanism causes more harm than the nicotine helps. After all, antibiotics are good medicine but you wouldn't administer them by putting them on the tip of a knitting needle and jamming it into your eyeball.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 10 2007, @07:14AM (#19811595)
        Depends on who I was administering it to...
      • by LS (57954) on Tuesday July 10 2007, @07:52AM (#19811913) Homepage
        Who said that cigarettes had to be the delivery mechanism? I'm sure cigarette companies have a large stake in tobacco farms, and may even own them. Seeing the heavy legislation and the decline in smoking, they are doing what any well-run company would do, which is to pursue other markets. The nicotine has to come from somewhere.

        LS
        • Thanks - I nearly gave my keyboard a coffee shower; truly made me LOL. Good show!
          Recent research has shown that computer parts truly appreciate coffee showers, as they provide new pathways for carrier electrons. To REALLY stimulate your electronics, though, give them coffee enemas!
        • by milamber3 (173273) on Tuesday July 10 2007, @09:33AM (#19812989)
          You should really know more about a subject before you go on spouting things like "You can be sure the tobacco industry is funding this research." A large portion of this funding is coming from the NIH and one of the main areas of study is smoking cessation. That most certainly does not benefit the tobacco companies. In addition, none of these studies would suggest a cigarette, dip or chew as the route of administration so once again no benefit. If anything, the pharm companies stand to gain while the tobacco companies stand to lose because the drugs in question are all synthetic nicotine like substances that are patented and solely under big pharma control.
    • This certainly sounds too good to be true. Makes me wonder who's funding the research.

      Actually, according to TFA (you did RTFA, right? Nevermind, "I must be new here" ;), the company doing the research was founded by a guy who used to work for RJ Reynolds. RJR retains a 4% stake in the company.

      Still, why poo poo the research just because its linked to RJR? It's not like they're trying to use it to sell cigarettes here ... they're developing drugs based on a modified nicotine. Sounds good to me.

      *shrugs*

      No

            • by asliarun (636603) on Tuesday July 10 2007, @09:27AM (#19812917)

              Not exclusively nicotine. They sell an image. Nicotine is just a nice side effect that keeps people physically addicted to their stuff.
              Sure, but so does alcohol or any other legally addictive substance. My point here is not to start a comparison war or a flame on which drug is healthier/less addictive etc. I'm just trying to point out that there is a LOT of hypocrisy surrounding cigarettes and smoking. My guess is that this hypocrisy mainly arises because smoking has now become socially unfashionable and even a taboo, at least in the US. Let me put it another way: If the same study was done about say, the beneficial effect of wines or alcohol in general, i bet you would see a tiny fraction of comments making snide remarks about the validity of the test and about the funding agency. Yes yes, I know, the tobacco industry is evil and has a history of funding shady science, but I still feel that the scorn being shown on /. is disproportionate. Heck, even a hard drug like cocaine or LSD wouldn't get this much opposition and sarcasm.
                  • by DerangedAlchemist (995856) on Tuesday July 10 2007, @12:47PM (#19815713)

                    I was told after a single trip on LSD you could experience flashbacks from it without taking the drug again and these could be good or bad. So from what I was told (at school) LSD sounds like it's worse than nicotine.

                    By scientific literature, LSD is one of the SAFEST drugs known to man and completely non-addictive. Seriously (it stunned me too, I've been trying to find any valid finding of dangers for a while.) Flashbacks appear to be a psychological effect and rare, more like Viet Nam vet's flashbacks.

                    Here's some perspective in people averaging over 3 drinks of alcohol per day, PERMANENT deficiencies in problem solving, concentration and memory begin to appear. (This is a statistic, so it is probably people who binge drink on weekends that have the damage, not those who have a few every day. I'm sure you remember mornings when you had brain damage.)

                    The relapse rates for quitting smokers are on par with heroin addicts.

            • by cayenne8 (626475) on Tuesday July 10 2007, @09:44AM (#19813163) Homepage Journal
              "Not exclusively nicotine. They sell an image. Nicotine is just a nice side effect that keeps people physically addicted to their stuff."

              It isn't just that...for many of us, smoking is FUN. I wish to hell it wasn't bad for you...if it weren't, I'd go back to it. It just was so natural to be in a bar, have a drink in one hand...smoke in the other. It also appeals to the 'firebug' in many people. Half the fun to me was the lighting up part.

              Also, was a neat way to introduce yourself to a woman...even not smoking any more, I often carry a lighter to light a smoke for her when she pulls one out.

              I'm sure some people...many in fact...are very hooked to nicotine..but, not everyone. Whenever I quit (and I've gone for years at a time)..the first 2 days are a PITA...but, not that big a deal after than. I didn't really smoke 'cause I NEEDED ONE....I did it because it was fun and an enjoyable activity for me.

              I don't think anyone is smoking because it "looks cool" or promotes an image. Most people I think smoke because they enjoy it and it is fun. If they came out with a harmless cigarette....I'd start smoking again immediately.

    • by Valdrax (32670) on Tuesday July 10 2007, @08:03AM (#19812009)
      ,,,but breathing in tar and particulate matter does not. And even if they find some beneficial uses for nicotene, its use must still be weighed against its effects as an addictive stimulant, including constricting the arteries and making people more susceptible to stroke and heart attacks.

      No matter what uses they find for nicotene, you're not going to suddenly make smoking healthy, so it wouldn't matter even if the tobacco industry was funding this.
  • Oh great (Score:5, Funny)

    by BlackCobra43 (596714) on Tuesday July 10 2007, @06:57AM (#19811461)
    Every time I try to get out, they pull me back in.

    Stop making me smoke you damned scientists!
  • Oh great (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 10 2007, @06:57AM (#19811467)
    quit smoking after 15 years. What a bitch. And NOW they say that the nicotine is good?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      I think they are planning on modified nicotine. Anyway, considering all the stuff in cigarettes, I don't think nicotine is the worst part - it's just the part that makes it hard for you to quit.

      Well, in the quantities present, it's not the worst part, but put a drop of that stuff on your tongue, and it's all over.
      • Re:Oh great (Score:4, Insightful)

        by value_added (719364) on Tuesday July 10 2007, @07:49AM (#19811887)
        I think they are planning on modified nicotine. Anyway, considering all the stuff in cigarettes, I don't think nicotine is the worst part - it's just the part that makes it hard for you to quit.

        Personally, I think the idea of modified nicotine may hold promise for many, but for those who smoke, the concept is somewhat akin to taking caffeine tablets instead of enjoying (or sharing ) that great cup of coffee. To the extent it works, life becomes a little bit less enjoyable. And less social.

        I smoke. Not because I suffer from an addiction to nicotine, or an innability to change any number of related habits, but because I choose to. And I derive great pleasure from it for a large number of reasons. I have, on occasion, cut back, or stopped entirely for weeks or months at a time, but I think that was due in most part to suffering the effects of a good habit gone bad. Too much of anything is bad (or bad for you, if you prefer). The ability to make that distinction is important.

        The benefits of nicotine for those suffering schizophrenia I found notable. Anyone familiar with the disease knows that smoking "relaxes" schizophrenics. I have a family member who has suffered from schizophrenia for most of his life. Watching him suffer from the disease is one thing, but seeing him endure the effects of the varying regimen of (mostly ineffective) drugs was even more painful. Personally, I'd prefer that he have a cigarette from time to time to make his (and others) life more bearable.

        For anyone that has opinions on smoking that borders on the hysterical, I'd suggest they lighten up. Or better still, light up once in a while. There are many things in life that are good for you in small amounts, but dangerous or poisonous at higher levels. Put another way, you'd be better served by not moralising your (and everyone else's) choices and instead, pick your favourite poison and enjoy it responsibly. Besides, what else are you going to do after sex? Peel an orange?
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      I gave up on Sunday and NOW this comes up? C'mon guys, be fair! Its hard enough as it is!
      • by javilon (99157) on Tuesday July 10 2007, @08:33AM (#19812295) Homepage
        Yes, I understand you, its like having finished recompiling Gentoo the day they have a new release.
      • Re:Oh great (Score:5, Insightful)

        by BluBrick (1924) <blubrick@noSPAm.gmail.com> on Tuesday July 10 2007, @08:41AM (#19812381) Homepage

        You gave up smoking? There's half your problem!

        It's in your language - you see not smoking as a sacrifice. Every time you mention to anyone that you're giving up, you subtly reinforce to yourself the idea that you are depriving yourself of something pleasurable.

        I stopped smoking instead of giving up. I made a point of referring to it in that fashion. The thing is, because of that attitude, I made sure I didn't feel like I was missing out on anything.

        Giving up smoking is hard - I tried it several times. Stopping smoking is much easier.

    • Re:Oh great (Score:4, Funny)

      by elrous0 (869638) * on Tuesday July 10 2007, @08:35AM (#19812319)
      For all those who bitched about breathing my second hand smoke: You're welcome.
      • Re:Oh great (Score:5, Interesting)

        by necro81 (917438) on Tuesday July 10 2007, @08:05AM (#19812027) Journal
        Well, nicotine is a tremendously addictive substance, like heroin, and a powerful stimulant to the body. It screws around with the all kinds of chemical receptors in the brain, including the ones that allow you to feel good. This is why a smoker in need of a fix is usually irritable and grumpy before taking that first sweet drag.

        But, you are right, the real danger with smoking is, well, smoking all the other shit that's in cigarettes - the nicotine is a secondary concern. The danger of the nicotine in cigarettes is the fact that it keeps you addicted.
  • by tygerstripes (832644) on Tuesday July 10 2007, @07:00AM (#19811491)
    ... if you're undertaking clinical trials with these drugs in the UK - don't do it in public enclosed spaces.
  • by LordBafford (1087463) on Tuesday July 10 2007, @07:10AM (#19811573) Homepage
    I can kind of vouch for this. Usually when I have my first smoke of the day I have to use the can soon after. I always thought they just put laxatives in cigarettes..
    • by Bourbon Man (76846) on Tuesday July 10 2007, @08:14AM (#19812115) Homepage
      I quit smoking about a year ago, and I've found that there is one bad thing about quitting (at least for me). I used to always get up, have a smoke, and within minutes I would need to go poop. Since I quit smoking, my pooping schedule is all messed up. When your bowels perform like clockwork for decades, to have that schedule go awry is truly a shitty thing.
  • Wait ..... (Score:4, Funny)

    by ajs318 (655362) <sd_resp2@earthshod.c o . uk> on Tuesday July 10 2007, @07:11AM (#19811575)
    So fags are good for you now?

    Just make sure that report wasn't signed by anybody named Benson or Hedges!
  • Daydream (Score:4, Funny)

    by Detritus (11846) on Tuesday July 10 2007, @07:21AM (#19811643) Homepage
    Go away! Don't you have work to do?

    Grumble...

    Can't take a smoke break in peace anymore, with all these health nuts trying to get a free lungful of nicotine.

  • The real problem (Score:5, Interesting)

    by stormi (837687) on Tuesday July 10 2007, @07:36AM (#19811769) Journal
    The idea is that nicotine releases happy chemicals in your brain. I think we've already known this for a while - it's why it's so hard to quit smoking. Now they are realizing that happy chemicals can treat some psychological disorders. Plausible. However, there is a problem with this theory that we've recognized for a long time. When we artifically create these chemicals in the brain via medications or other chemicals and drugs, we get used to having the feeling. Then, in ordinary situations where we are supposed to experience happiness (ex. a day off, a sunny day, a good dessert, a good song) we don't feel anything. This leads further into depression because people literally cannot find happiness in activities they once found enjoyable. Any of the "happy chemicals" that might go off naturaly are so negligible compared to the constant chemicals caused by the drugs that the good experiences may just as well have never happened. So, nicotine makes you happy? Probably. Can help with certain mental disorders? Again, probably. But should it be used / is it the best solution? That is what's debatable.
  • better than SSRI? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by lawpoop (604919) on Tuesday July 10 2007, @07:38AM (#19811793) Homepage Journal
    I had a bout of depression last year and I saw a psychiatrist. I went over my life history. At the end of the session, he recommended a cocktail of 3 different drugs! Apparently because I had had a manic episode once in my life when I was in high-school, I was a manic-depressive. I needed one drug for the depression, one for the mania, and some other one. Jesus Christ.

    I stopped seeing him. I was looking into 'legal' highs for depression, such as St. John's Wort and

    Since I also had problems concentrating, I tried smoking for the nicotine. I found that it really helped with my anxiety. I took a smoke after work, I relaxed, and then moved my bowels. I felt calm and focused rather than frenzied and harried. Things were right on course instead of all over the place. I've since given it up, however, since I started coughing.

    I know smoking destroys your lungs gives you cancer after decades. My maternal grandparents died of cancers in their 60s, probably from smoking. All the people I try to turn on to smoking tell me that. But what are the long-term effects of taking anti-depression or anti-anxiety medication for decades.

    It seems to me that cigarettes are a relatively cheap and simple anti-depressant. Although there are long term health consequences, we don't really know what the damage is from decades of wellbutrin. Of course, Big Pharma would rather have us rely on them for anti-depressants than use a simple plant that we could grow ourselves... Hey, that sounds familiar.
    • by Lord Ender (156273) on Tuesday July 10 2007, @08:42AM (#19812389) Homepage

      I stopped seeing him. I was looking into 'legal' highs for depression, such as St. John's Wort and

      Since I also had problems concentrating,
      That's gold! Seriously, you just can't write comedy like that intentionally.
        • Re:better than SSRI? (Score:4, Informative)

          by Johnny5000 (451029) on Tuesday July 10 2007, @01:19PM (#19816169) Homepage Journal
          Alcohol is not physically addictive. A person who depends on drinking is different than someone addicted to heroin or nicotine.

          Sorry to pick a nit, but I had to throw in here...

          from wiki [wikipedia.org]:

          Alcohol withdrawal

          Alcohol withdrawal differs significantly from withdrawal from other drugs in that it can be directly fatal. While it is possible for heroin addicts, for instance, to die from other health problems made worse by the strain of withdrawal, an otherwise healthy alcoholic can die from the direct effects of withdrawal if it is not properly managed. Heavy consumption of alcohol reduces the production of GABA, which is a neuroinhibitor. An abrupt stop of alcohol consumption can induce a condition where neither alcohol nor GABA exists in the system in adequate quantities, causing uncontrolled firing of the synapses. This manifests as hallucinations, shakes, convulsions, seizures, and possible heart failure, all of which are collectively referred to as delirium tremens. All of these withdrawal issues can be safely controlled with a medically supervised detox.


          Not only is alcohol physically addictive, it's even worse than heroin and nicotine.
  • Oh ya... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by EvilTwinSkippy (112490) <yoda AT etoyoc DOT com> on Tuesday July 10 2007, @07:47AM (#19811865) Homepage Journal
    Buy it at a corner store and smoke it, it's teh evil!!!!one!!!

    Extract the same stuff, put it in pills and tablets, and sell it for a bajillion more, it's medicine.
  • by Tuoqui (1091447) on Tuesday July 10 2007, @07:47AM (#19811867) Journal
    They're planning on using Nicotine as a basis for new drugs by using similar structures to target receptors in the brain and slow, pause or reverse diseases like parkinsons.

    Alternatively they're looking at cremes which can be used to promote blood flow to parts of the body (begin Viagra jokes now please). Mostly as a way to prevent Diabetic amputations which means its better for the health care system since they wont have to chop off as many legs which means less people in wheelchairs and such.

    It's not endorsing that people go light up. Just that they can probably make these things new drugs and get them in 'patch form' in the future (because lets face it lighting up a cigarette is not the best method of administering such a drug)

    Maybe they'll start working with Marijuana again.
  • by LM741N (258038) on Tuesday July 10 2007, @08:05AM (#19812031)
    What they are doing is looking at drugs which are derivatives of nicotine. Thus they can patent them and charge you $5/pill.
  • We're going to replace a $2.50 pack of cigarettes with a $400 bottle of pills, and declare victory! I would be more than willing to bet that even if you factor in the eventual risk cost of cancer and other smoking related diseases, it might still come in cheaper than the cost of exotic drugs based on nicotine. The moral of the story is, smoke up to avoid depression, and hope science comes up with a cheaper pill to cure cancer.
  • by bodland (522967) on Tuesday July 10 2007, @08:28AM (#19812241) Homepage
    Packaged in a 20 dose per container. New fashionable "inhaler" delivery system. Regular, 100 and 120 mg sizes. To take the new drugs you light the end of the inhaler tube and inhale the refreshing vapor. The dose burns with a pleasing aroma and relaxing patterns of vapor. 20 doses, take as needed 20 times per day or more. Packed in soft of hard pack box and cartons. Available at most gas stations. Menthol and other flavors available. NOW over the counter!

    Welcome to a healthy new you.
  • The "Separate Story" (Score:5, Informative)

    by DynaSoar (714234) on Tuesday July 10 2007, @09:23AM (#19812857) Journal
    The separate story referred to on the lead article is not about nicotine, it's about smoking. My dissertation was based on showing that at least one substance that prevented Parkinson's was active in the brains of smokers despite 8+ hours of abstinence (reduction of plasma nicotine levels to less than 1% of usual). I tested smokers abstaining and after smoking either a normal cigarette or one made from denicotinized tobacco and found no difference between conditions or groups. Nicotine or lack thereof had nothing to do with the EEG signature of chronic increased dopamine levels compared to non-smokers (which was the study I did prior to my diss). This work, and that of the folks in the chemistry department that isolated and synthesized the hypothesized active component, was what was referred to in "Thank You For Smoking". And to preempt any conclusion jumping, this doesn't mean you should smoke. Knowing what the substance is (trimethyl naphthoquinone) and how it works (dopamine releaser and reuptake blocker as well as MAO inhibitor) means it or something that does the same thing can be developed and used without needing tobacco in the process.

    The carbon monoxide effect has some merit too. CO in the blood scavenges excess hyperoxides, a source of oxidative stress which is a known cause of Parkinson's and other apparent autoimmune problems. As above, you don't need to smoke to get the effect and can obviously find other things to do the same job. They're called anti-oxidants.

    Nicotine may well also have some other protective effect, but it doesn't prevent mitochondrial MPTP from turning into MPP+, a very potent neurotoxin that causes Parkinsonian apoptosis. To read up on the mechanism, look up the "frozen addicts". As an interesting aside, at least one of them was all but completely cured in weeks using injected stem cells before the fundies got ahold of the concept and strangled it.
  • by Fantastic Lad (198284) on Tuesday July 10 2007, @01:04PM (#19815981)
    1. The Filter. --One of the more harmful elements in cigarette smoking is the filter; loose fibers from the filter which are .3 microns in length have the remarkable ability to lodge in your lungs and never come out again. Much like asbestos, this can cause problems. Unlike asbestos, fibers from cigarette filters also come coated with toxins in smoke tar. I recently read a study, (blowed if I can find it again), which found that small cancers in the lungs typically had a tar-coated filter fiber at their center.

    2. Additives. --In looking at the toxicity issue with regard to tobacco, I have noted that it is incredibly common for people to ignore the fact that cigarette companies use an assortment of 500 additives into their products, many of which are known carcinogens. [about.com] When studies are done on the toxicity of tobacco smoke, this detail is often left unmentioned. Are they testing tobacco per se, or are they testing corporate tobacco?

    3. Radioactive tobacco leaves. --Your basic cigarette probably came from a farm which used phosphate fertilizer, known to contain radioactive metals [cannabisculture.com]. After years of use, these radioactive metals build up in the soil to high concentrations. Many foods are similarly affected, but you don't smoke most foods. This element of tobacco is considered by those who have studied the issue to be one of the leading reasons smoking can cause cancer.

    You can buy organic tobacco, [motherearthtobacco.com] and you can smoke it in a pipe. No filter, no deliberately added poisons and no radioactive particles. I wonder if they've ever done health tests on this kind of tobacco smoke.

    Probably not.

    Here are some more points. . .

    1. Pavlovian Responses to stress indicate that when you raise the anxiety level in a subject to the breaking point, you can then easily insert a new set of behaviors which become locked into place. . .

    Pavlov demonstrated that when Transmarginal Inhibition began to take over a dog, a condition similar to hysteria in a human manifested. The applications of these findings to human psychology suggest that for a "conversion" to be effective, it is necessary to work on the subject's emotions until s/he reaches an abnormal condition of fear, anger or exaltation. If such a state is maintained or intensified by any of various means, hysteria is the result. In a state of hysteria, a human being is abnormally suggestible and influences in the environment can cause one set of behavior patterns to be replaced by another without any need for persuasive indoctrination. In states of fear and excitement, normally sensible human beings will accept the most wildly improbably suggestions. [. . .] Most of Pavlov's findings applicable to Mind Control are reported in a series of Pavlov's later lectures translated by Horsley Gantt, published in Great Britain and the United States in 1941 under the title "Conditioned Reflexes and Psychiatry." [5] Professor Y. P. Frolov's book about these experiments, Pavlov and His School [6] has also been translated into English. Article here [cassiopedia.org]

    2. Tobacco smoke quickly lowers stress and anxiety and feelings of anger. It is one of the only two commonly used drugs on the market which while increasing clarity of thinking does not affect judgment. (Caffeine is the other). Old native bands meeting to discuss problems would all first smoke before opening their meeting, (hence, the "peace pipe"). Tobacco lent itself well to averting unnecessary anger and anxiety. In a world like ours today when fear is regularly promoted in such a way which guides the decisions and acceptance of the public with regard to international policy, knowledge

    • Re:Of course it does (Score:5, Informative)

      by MoonFog (586818) on Tuesday July 10 2007, @07:04AM (#19811527)
      Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that while the nicotine makes quitting smoking hard to do, its health effect is not as great as that of the other substances in smoke such as tar. That's what gives you lung cancer, not the nicotine itself.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Most things are toxic at some level, be it 50mg or 500mg. If you take too much tylenol it can kill you. That doesn't mean that at low doses its not useful.

      And also, they are not saying smoking is healthy, they are investigating the properties of nicotine and how it affects the brain. Smoking is not the only method of getting nicotine into the body. If they can isolate helpful effects of the drug, maybe it can do some good.
    • Re:'medicine' (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TheLink (130905) on Tuesday July 10 2007, @07:31AM (#19811731) Journal
      You're overreacting. It's all about the dosage and usage.

      Lots of people go for botox treatments, and allegedly some of them end up looking better ;).

      People consume poisons all the time - capsaicin (in spicy foods), cyanide (in almonds), caffeine, and nicotine. Chrysanthemum is often made into a tea, but it contains pyrethrum which is a "natural pesticide".

      In fact, it may be that a lot of smokers are dying more due to the radioactivity than the nicotine or tar.

      wiki: "One study found that tobacco grown in India averaged only 0.09 pCi per gram of polonium 210, whereas tobacco grown in the United States averaged 0.516 pCi per gram."

      "In support of this hypothetical link between radioactive elements in tobacco and cancer is the observation that bladder cancer incidence is also proportional to the amount of tobacco smoked, even though nonradioactive carcinogens have not been detected in the urine of even heavy smokers; however, urine of smokers contains about six times more polonium 210 than that of nonsmokers, suggesting strongly that the polonium 210 is the cause of the bladder carcinogenicity, and would be expected to act similarly in the lungs and other tissue."
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        One study found that tobacco grown in India averaged only 0.09 pCi per gram of polonium 210, whereas tobacco grown in the United States averaged 0.516 pCi per gram.
        Quick guide to Indian tobacco:
        If you're poor, smoke beedis (unflavored ones); If you're rich, Trichnopoly cigars (Woraiyur suruttu used to be an excellent choice).
        The first is probably available at your local Indian store and the second at elite tobacconists'.

        Cheers!