What Would This Mean For Cigars?

[Fugu]

18 hours ago, Hookmaker said:

For what?

With regard to the validity of statements. Because they are not correct or not correctly reproduced. There are two forms of nicotine in solution, indeed, but it is two ionic states of the very same molecule (leaving the enantiomeric existence of two stereo-isomeres aside, with only one, the physiologically active one, occurring in nature). Nicotine is a weak base. And as such - and perhaps that's the underlying cause for confusion - nicotine can reversibly dissociate, with the prevailing forms, either cationic ("acid") or undissociated ("base") being present in solution in a steady state equilibrium. This acid-base equilibrium will be shifted depending on solvent medium, and in aqueous solution it will depend on pH. But: Both, the cation or the undissociated form will both be absorbed via skin and mucosa, only the rate at which this happens is different (may be further mediated by additives). There isn't a particular "form" that would be absorbed through the lung only but not through the oral mucosa, or vice versa. Neither is one form to be found exclusively in cigars while the other one is found in cigarettes only, since both states are reversible. Cigar smoke is more alkaline and so there will - initially (with saliva having a high buffering capacity) - be more of the pure base present when dissolved in the oral fluid, and thus likely more readily absorbed there compared to cigarette smoke. Still - intake via inhaling is a multitude of the intake via the oral mucosa, and cigarette smokers tend to considerably outreach the blood plasma levels of cigar smokers.

As mentioned in a previous post, but this all is not about the absolute concentration nor the toxicity of nicotine. They (FDA) are trying to address the addictive potential of it. And that depends mainly on the wash-in rate into the blood and body, that is: the speed at which nicotine reaches your brain. Apart from absolute levels, that is considerably different between cigar and cigarette smokers, with just a few seconds in a cigarette-smoke inhaler. Further, nicotine is cleaved from the body already during smoking (half-life cleavage about 2 hours give and take, depending on smoker's constitution), and while the liver is doing its job, plasma levels in cigar smokers reach a steady state equlibrium. That's the reason, why you may smoke double corona after double corona and still won't get a nic-intoxication, because blood plasma levels will not exceed a certain titre - provided (!) one smokes decently slow, as is normally the case for the sake of the enjoyment of a cigar. The gist of all this is: The addictive potential of orally administered nicotine is low, and I suppose most members here who are able to easily do breaks of several days to weeks are testament to this fact.

But rightly, as Piggy is alluding to, yet the true question of the debate really is - is (cigar) smoking a public / social affair? Has it to be controlled - actually meanwhile we are talking about prohibition measures - by the community? Or, as long as no third party is being harmed, is this a heavy governmental overreach towards a purely private affair? There has been a very good post by a member some weeks ago citing a publication dealing with exactly this very philosophical question (can't find it right now, unfortunately). As for the freedom to smoke at least it appears there is a permanent operating with double-standards.

[Hookmaker]

I don’t disagree, but being a pharmacist and having studied nicotine I don’t believe my statements were no true. Just more simply explained. I too could have copied one of millions of dissertations on nicotine and it’s properties, but believed that to be off the point here. Fact is a cigar contains A LOT more nicotine than a cigarette, simply because nicotine in cigarettes is regulated now a days to be very low and “raw tobacco” as in cigars are not and there’s a lot more of it in a cigar. Second direct mucosa contact with the cigar tobacco releases a lot more nicotine, that’s why eg. chewing tobacco releases a lot of nicotine. All this is of course extremely dependent on a million variables. 

As for the political and regulatory part of the discussion, freedom rights etc. I have no say, I work with regulators and prefer to keep that off my free time.  

[LordAnubis]

There is another thread going on right now about smoking cigars late at night and impact on sleep.   Lot of people can't have late cigars because the nicotine keeps them up.
I am no expert here and I don't get a rush from nicotine.  So I have no idea the impact of nicotine on most.

I haven’t had too many cigars of late. I wonder if I should have a cigar at work on night shift to keep myself up


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Monterey]

1 hour ago, Hookmaker said:

I don’t disagree, but being a pharmacist and having studied nicotine I don’t believe my statements were no true. Just more simply explained. I too could have copied one of millions of dissertations on nicotine and it’s properties, but believed that to be off the point here. Fact is a cigar contains A LOT more nicotine than a cigarette, simply because nicotine in cigarettes is regulated now a days to be very low and “raw tobacco” as in cigars are not and there’s a lot more of it in a cigar. Second direct mucosa contact with the cigar tobacco releases a lot more nicotine, that’s why eg. chewing tobacco releases a lot of nicotine. All this is of course extremely dependent on a million variables. 

As for the political and regulatory part of the discussion, freedom rights etc. I have no say, I work with regulators and prefer to keep that off my free time.  

You are completely right.  Fugu wants to justify his habit.  I say move on and let him think what he wants.  I respectfully disagree with him completely.  I got nicotine sickness last night smoking a 1926 padron.  I forget how much nicotine are in those cigars.  Had to eat some honey as my head was spinning.

I accept what I'm doing, justifying with obscure internet articles that all is well is just silly.

[Zigatoh]

4 hours ago, Monterey said:

You are completely right.  Fugu wants to justify his habit.  I say move on and let him think what he wants.  I respectfully disagree with him completely.  I got nicotine sickness last night smoking a 1926 padron.  I forget how much nicotine are in those cigars.  Had to eat some honey as my head was spinning.

I accept what I'm doing, justifying with obscure internet articles that all is well is just silly.

Fact is a cigar contains a lot more nicotine than a cigarette.  Fact is cigars are generally relaxing rather than stimulating - see other thread re nicotine being a stimulant And a relaxant. Fact is a cigarette smoker or a chewers goes through hell if they take a few days off, in the vast majority a cigar smoker doesn't. 

But no, you're both right, cigar smoking is just the same as cigarettes or chewing, worse probably given how much nicotine is in a cigar.

One last thing, so a cigar has the same nicotine as a pack or two of cigarettes?  Ever tried smoking a pack or two of cigarettes in an hour or two?

Wait, two last thing,  nicotine isn't carcinogenic so likely has little to do with accepting what you're doing.

Okok Three last thing, but that's it I promise,  nicotine in isolation hasn't even been proven to be addictive,  it is in combination with a load of other fun stuff added to cigarettes,  pyrazines for example. So why the hoo-ha about nicotine anyway?! 

(4 it prevents alzheimer's and parkinsons, shhhh)

[Fugu]

6 hours ago, Hookmaker said:

I don’t disagree, but being a pharmacist and having studied nicotine I don’t believe my statements were no true. Just more simply explained.

Sorry, not really wanting to beat a dead horse, Hookmaker, but for the sake of the argument and given you are an expert, perhaps even working scientifically, can't let you off the hook here so easily...

Those your above statements "One is absorbed only through the lung membrane the other can not pass there.." and "you don’t have to inhale cigar smoke to the lungs as it’s nicotine will not pass here." are not more simply explained - they are simply false. Nicotine can pass and will pass the lung, irrespective of which form and whether from cigar (if inhaled) or cigarette.

6 hours ago, Hookmaker said:

Fact is a cigar contains A LOT more nicotine than a cigarette

This has never been disputed, but wasn't my point (as was neither the point of others in this thread), was it? Difference between 'content' and 'intake' anyone?

6 hours ago, Hookmaker said:

Second direct mucosa contact with the cigar tobacco releases a lot more nicotine, that’s why eg. chewing tobacco releases a lot of nicotine.

You really got to love it when people ignore the argument and then come up with a new side-show...

[Fugu]

5 hours ago, Monterey said:

I accept what I'm doing, justifying with obscure internet articles that all is well is just silly.

Haha, well, don't let the facts get in your way! And as for you playing the man - ...Never mind. This is not the first time that I am taking notice of your special "intonation".

On a serious note though -

5 hours ago, Monterey said:

I got nicotine sickness last night smoking a 1926 padron.  I forget how much nicotine are in those cigars.  Had to eat some honey as my head was spinning.

- this may well be due to your particular habit of smoking cigars. An effect e.g. not unknown in former cigarette smokers, as some still unconsciously inhale a part of the smoke. Maybe let someone experienced show you how to properly smoke a Padron 1926. Feeling with you!

Finally some fun-thread again...

[Monterey]

57 minutes ago, Fugu said:

Haha, well, don't let the facts get in your way! And as for you playing the man - ...Never mind. This is not the first time that I am taking notice of your special "intonation".

On a serious note though -

- this may well be due to your particular habit of smoking cigars. An effect e.g. not unknown in former cigarette smokers, as some still unconsciously inhale a part of the smoke. Maybe let someone experienced show you how to properly smoke a Padron 1926. Feeling with you!

Finally some fun-thread again...

And with the personal attacks goes Fugu.  I'm not sinking to your level.  Have a wonderful blessed day.

[nealnyc]

[Fuzz]

Keep it on track people.

[gweilgi]

5 hours ago, Fuzz said:

Keep it on track people.

I have a mind like a railway track: one way and dirty.  Is that acceptable?

But to get back on topic: what concerns me is not the science of it, the rights or wrongs of public health policy, or the differences in usage between cigar smokers and other tobacco users.  

What I am afraid of are zealous anti-smoking activists for whom all tobacco is the devil's drug, ignorant politicians who think they can get an easy vote-winner by signalling their caring health-conscious attitudes, and above all careless civil servants and policy wonks who draft these regulations and laws without stopping to consider that cigars are different from cigarettes. All it takes to screw us over is a simple omission or some thoughtless phrasing such as "combustible tobacco products".... 

[jfire]

Would it not matter that the mucosa
of the lungs (surface area wise), is much bigger and thinner? Since we are taking all things science, human anatomy and physiology. I would think this difference alone would matter the most for rate of absorption on vitamin N.

[Fugu]

6 hours ago, jfire said:

Would it not matter that the mucosa
of the lungs (surface area wise), is much bigger and thinner? Since we are taking all things science, human anatomy and physiology. I would think this difference alone would matter the most for rate of absorption on vitamin N.

Yep, that exactly is the main reason. Way weaker tissue barrier, much larger surface area. Whereby the alveoli are lacking much of the many strata of a mucosa. With only two cell-layers forming the barrier between lumen (air) and blood - the lung's function actually is it to easily exchange molecules with the body....