Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Hellstryker on March 04, 2008, 06:12:18 am
-
You hear all these commercials about drugs that block them in the brain, but why the hell do we HAVE nicotine receptors in the first place? :wtf:
-
...but why the hell do we HAVE nicotine receptors in the first place? :wtf:
To recept nicotine? Duh!
-
But WHY? All it does is create a nasty habit. Somewhere along our evolutionary lines it seems however that we needed them though, so where?
-
I think it more likely that they are chemical receptors and not "Nicotine" receptors. The receptors are more multi-functional just they also happen to be susceptible to nicotine as well as other drugs/chemicals.
-
Because when God designed us, a lobbyist from Phillip-Morris managed to convince Him that it was a good idea.
-
Because when God designed us, a lobbyist from Phillip-Morris managed to convince Him that it was a good idea.
God why am all i getting is jokes here? cant some of the TVWP nerds join in!? :\
-
They're meant to accept other chemicals which the body uses to pass on signals (acetylcholine if I remember my toxicology correctly) but nicotine has the right atoms in the right places to confuse the receptors into thinking that they are the chemical they're meant to be accepting.
-
'bout time. Praise the great banned one!
-
'bout time. Praise the great banned one!
Errr! I tried to help, well I wasn't joking anyway! :P
I think it more likely that they are chemical receptors and not "Nicotine" receptors. The receptors are more multi-functional just they also happen to be susceptible to nicotine as well as other drugs/chemicals.
-
Everybody but you and karajorma
-
If you want to stop them craving nicotine just have some crack and smother them. Rambo 4 starts in 1 minute. Squee!
-
They're meant to accept other chemicals which the body uses to pass on signals (acetylcholine if I remember my toxicology correctly) but nicotine has the right atoms in the right places to confuse the receptors into thinking that they are the chemical they're meant to be accepting.
Yeah, it's actually called a nicotinic receptor; nicotine just happens to bind it as well as natural neurotransmitters.
-
Nicotine is medically useful (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine#Therapeutic_uses).
The one thing that it doesn't mention is that nicotine can be used to treat varicose veins.
-
Yeah but it can contribute by raising blood pressure too. Or is that tar? I forget and apologise in advance if incorrect.
-
Nicotine will do that. Tar is a very potent carcinogen (i.e gives you cancer) though. I don't recall ever hearing of nicotine being proven as a carcinogen in its own right. However that doesn't mean it's safe. The reason why plants make nicotine is because it's a natural insecticide. In its pure form it is very toxic to humans. Most people probably don't realise quite how toxic though.
The LD50 of nicotine is 50 mg/kg for rats and 3 mg/kg for mice. 40–60 mg (0.5-1.0 mg/kg) can be a lethal dosage for adult humans.
Now compare that with this
The oral median lethal dose, or LD50 of potassium cyanide is about 5–10 milligrams per kilogram of body weight for rats, mice, and rabbits.
In other words it actually is more toxic to mice than cyanide and close in toxicity for humans.
-
They're meant to accept other chemicals which the body uses to pass on signals (acetylcholine if I remember my toxicology correctly) but nicotine has the right atoms in the right places to confuse the receptors into thinking that they are the chemical they're meant to be accepting.
I was going to say that :(
-
there are better things one can smoke :D
-
But are any of them actually healthy with no bad side effects lol?
-
theres a beetle that eats tobacco plants i wonder if that ever gets cancer ?
-
Like I said, AFAIK there's no evidence than nicotine causes cancer. Cigarette smoke is full of all kinds of other nasties which are much more likely to be the cause.
-
That's why i smoked hand rolled. I have the odd one now and then. I'm probably on less than 20 a week. Compared to 40+ a day it's a Mighty improvement.
-
I smoke approx twenty hand rolled a day! But I believe there is less chemicals in rolling tobacco, than in cigarette tobacco. (IIRC they add ammonia into cigarette tobacco to make it more addictive / gives a better hit to the brain).
-
IIRC most of the carcinogenicity of cigarettes comes from the creation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from the burning process rather than the chemicals in the tobacco when unburnt. So I don't know what effect switching to hand rolling might have. It could be better, it could be worse.
-
No Tar for a start, and the filters bang out hydrocarbons more than the paper does :nod:
-
IIRC most of the carcinogenicity of cigarettes comes from the creation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from the burning process rather than the chemicals in the tobacco when unburnt. So I don't know what effect switching to hand rolling might have. It could be better, it could be worse.
Actually, that's not accurate. Chewing tobacco also causes cancer, and it has nothing to do with it being ignited. I see loads of jaw and mouth cancer patients who have cancer because of chewing tobacco. Tobacco itself is carinogenic. While commercial cigarettes have other chemicals added which are additionally problematic, even hand-rolled, do-it-yourself smokes are carcinogenic. Sorry, guys. There's just no may to use tobacco (other than applying it externally to bruises) that doesn't carry a significant risk of cancer.
-
Im not entirely sure about signicant, seems as how my dad has smoked tons and tons of **** over the years and he recently had his lungs looked at and they're completely clear, but still, i don't plan on smoking even if just for the frakking cost factor of it
-
Chewing is a different thing all together. Instead of getting what you need from inhalation. The plant matter is chewed and all the gunge and crap is washed around inside the mouth. It's disgusting. Yuk! Smoking can stain teeth if people don't brush and mouthwash *yuk @such dirty people* so imagine what leaving rank ashtray juice in your pallet for the better part of a day can do. The only people who should be allowed to chew are cowboys and homeless people.
-
Actually, that's not accurate. Chewing tobacco also causes cancer, and it has nothing to do with it being ignited. I see loads of jaw and mouth cancer patients who have cancer because of chewing tobacco. Tobacco itself is carinogenic. While commercial cigarettes have other chemicals added which are additionally problematic, even hand-rolled, do-it-yourself smokes are carcinogenic. Sorry, guys. There's just no may to use tobacco (other than applying it externally to bruises) that doesn't carry a significant risk of cancer.
Yeah, but I was only referring to smoking and you don't chew cigarettes. :D
I wasn't saying that if you don't burn tobacco it's safe. It isn't by a really long way. Just that the really nastiest stuff in cigarette smoke comes from burning. I remember hearing once that they'd actually noticed that there was some pattern to the damage in most malignant lung tumours that allowed them to say that PAHs were the cause of that tumour.
After the PAHs I think the next biggest nasty are nitrosamines in the tobacco. But again burning the tobacco makes more of those than were originally present.
With chewing tobacco you've got a different mode of action. IIRC chewing tobacco gets more toxic after you put it in your mouth because your saliva breaks down some of the chemicals in it into much more carcinogenic chemicals.
So I guess the point I was making was simply that you can't assume that hand-rolled are any safer than standard cigarettes unless you've got some data on the amount and kind of carcinogens they both produce. They could easily be worse. The fact that they have less chemicals in the actual tobacco means little if the cigarette itself produces much more PAH.
-
Karajorma,
Right, you have a valid point. I know that stuides have been done on the difference between hand-rolled and commerical cigarettes. I don't remember the verdict off the top of my head, and I'm too lazy to look it up on the weekend. Maybe when I get into the office on Monday I'll pull them up and share the results.
-
I'd certainly be interested in hearing the answer as this is the sort of question where I can see the answer going either way. :)
Sometimes I do think I should have stuck with toxicology. It was the only part of my degree that really had me gripped in the last year. :)
-
I'll see if I can squeeze some time in to check the data. I was out of town on business last week, so my schedule should be nuts this week. I'll try to take a look, though.