Parts of this article were drawn from my recent column in Clearing the Air. The full version gets into the motives for the activist science claims and an analysis of the reasons for the Bloomberg-WHO’s irrational campaigns against tobacco harm reduction strategies. One of those reasons is that the activist scientists and campaigners could never accept that nicotine would be perceived as offering important health benefits.

Imagine a wonder drug that picks you up when you need energy, calms you when you are stressed and allows you to concentrate and focus on important issues. That wonder drug is not caffeine (sorry) but rather, nicotine. And if the Bloomberg-WHO coalition allowed people to understand how these benefits could be attained relatively harm-free, then Big Tobacco sales and profits from e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches would increase. The benefits of nicotine have become a terrifying secret that cannot be spoken of, so Michael Bloomberg continues to pump billions into his veil of distortion.

But I prefer to consider facts and evidence rather than dogmatic activist rhetoric, so allow me to indulge in the subject matter. While there may be some cardiovascular risk from elevated levels of nicotine, there are important pharmacological and cognitive benefits from nicotine use, namely:

• Nicotine enhances cognitive functions (attention span, alertness, reaction time) over the short-term. It does this by stimulating the nicotinic pathways and increasing dopamine, acetylcholine and serotonin levels. The nicotinic pathways are central to cognitive function and working memory. See studies here, here and here. The last paper, by Koukouli and Changeux, states: “In humans, administration of nicotine ameliorates cognitive impairment such as deficits in attention, social interactions, and working memory and thus has a positive action on high-order cognitive processes.”
• Nicotine can create neuroprotective effects. These same studies argue that the enhanced cognitive functions can reduce neurodegeneration and help patients battling Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, anxiety, depression and schizophrenia.
• Nicotine is anti‑inflammatory. Nicotine activates the cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathway (via α7 nAChRs) on immune cells, reducing pro-inflammatory cytokines. There are ongoing studies on how this can help in cases like sepsis, ulcerative colitis and autoimmune inflammation as well as the role nicotine can play in reducing inflammation in diseases like Alzheimer’s and arthritis. (As a sufferer of osteo-arthritis, and the constant chronic pain caused by inflammation flares, this information is important to me.)
• Nicotine reduces appetite and body weight. Studies have shown how nicotine increases blood glucose and metabolic rates, reducing appetite while increasing energy expenditure. Weight gain was always considered a necessary evil in quitting smoking, but by allowing smokers to quit with e-cigarettes or nicotine pouches, this is no longer the case. An interesting study looks at the physiological and molecular mechanisms behind how nicotine affects energy and food-motivated behaviour.

Many would argue that caffeine, the highly addictive drug found in coffee, provides similar short-term cognitive and anti-inflammatory benefits. But nicotine is far easier to administer and more effective as a pharmacological drug. More importantly, this short exercise begs the question: Why don’t people know about the health benefits of nicotine? Now that I know about this, I am able to filter out the noise and make a personal decision to advance my own health at a vulnerable age.

As a 63-year-old who is starting to become forgetful and struggles to keep focused, with a family history of vascular dementia, fighting weight gain and struggling with chronic osteo-arthritis and the pain caused by related inflammation flares, I would clearly benefit from taking up vaping. So while I am not an indulgent person easily falling for marketing or lifestyle gimmicks (I have never smoked, don’t gamble and only drink in moderation), I think it is the right time in my life to start using nicotine.

But Mr Monger, this is pure nonsense. You are simply taking the piss out of the good people trying to protect the public, especially the children, from a highly addictive substance. You are clearly a shill for Big Tobacco, an evil industry that will do anything to profit from human weakness and get the next generation of consumers addicted to their products.

The Social Construct of Addiction 

A common refrain from the Bloomberg-WHO coalition hymn sheet is that nicotine is addictive. This is undisputed as it is the substance that makes tobacco addictive. But addiction is only an issue, we only talk about it as a problem, when there are negative consequences. Addiction is a social construct. The health consequences from smoking combustible tobacco products is a negative consequence. Drug addiction, like gambling, can ruin families and careers. Alcoholism has health and societal consequences. Addiction becomes a problem when the consequences define it.

I recently wrote an article confessing that I am one of the hundreds of millions of people addicted to running. But is that an addiction if there are no evident negative consequences? I am writing this article on my third cup of coffee (while contemplating a fourth). Caffeine is clearly addictive, but I welcome the benefits rather than being burdened by the consequences. There are sex addicts, workaholics, music junkies and compulsive Samaritans… all of whom, if acting responsibly, are not causing harm and thus do not fall under the socially constructed definition of addiction.

Does tobacco-free nicotine fall under the definition of an addiction with negative consequences that must be treated, or is it a practice that, if managed responsibly, is not at all a societal issue? The Bloomberg-funded activist scientists are working to manufacture evidence to show that there are health consequences from vaping and nicotine pouches, but the risks are so miniscule when measured against the health harms from smoking combustibles. See the IMF graphic below. The activists know that if they cannot find convincing negative consequences from nicotine consumption, then the addiction argument falls flat. Worse … people may learn about the benefits of nicotine.

There has been a concerted effort by the Bloomberg-funded anti-nicotine campaigners (and by extension, the WHO) to equate the use of reduced-harm nicotine products with smoking combustible tobacco products. By identifying these very different products with smoking, consumers are confused about the relative safety of e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches and often continue to use cigarettes. Any health benefits the nicotine may provide smokers is negated by the greater health risks from tobacco.

With a campaign built on an evident lie, the Bloomberg-WHO coalition, out of desperation, has turned to applying the tried and tested activist strategy of using children. They argue that vaping is a gateway for young people to start smoking. The data does not back this up and the logic is rather twisted. People enjoy vaping because it is better than smoking and would only smoke if vaping is banned or made unappealing. So the well-paid activists try to remove flavours (once again, because they appeal to children). Vaping rates in schools have been dropping in countries like the UK and US because of basic risk management strategies. It is normal that people enjoy flavours – I would never want to eat a meal with no taste, texture or aroma. Vaping flavour bans only make tobacco use more appealing.

But the logic does not matter here – the activists are desperate to find a negative consequence to justify their claim that alternative nicotine products are dangerous and thus an addiction that must be prohibited. What they need to succeed is to get an agency like the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to cook the data in a hazard-based monograph that will force a conclusion that nicotine is a carcinogen (spoiler alert: It is not).

As the health risks to tobacco-free nicotine are inherently low and the benefits are significant for the chronic health issues I am presently facing (and which will only increase in intensity with age), I have decided to ignore the confusing disinformation intentionally spread by well-funded activists and take up the use of nicotine via e-cigarettes. I must admit I am curious about the different flavours I can choose from. I will also need to learn how to use nicotine pouches for times when I travel to Nanny State countries like Singapore where their regulations are intended to force me to smoke.

Your Bias Check

If you have read this entire article even though you are completely offended by my reasoning, thank you. But I would like you to do a quick check-in with your bias.

• How come it is impossible for you to accept that nicotine may have health benefits, or for the quality of people’s lives to be improved with the use of nicotine?
• What is it that makes you want to treat alternative nicotine products like e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches in the same way as combustible tobacco products even though vaping is far safer?
• Why do you think it is right for vaping to be restricted from public spaces in the same way as smoking even though there are no health risks from second-hand vape inhalation?
• Are you so offended that big tobacco companies have entered this market (for existential reasons) that you cannot see the importance of these tobacco harm reduction strategies in saving lives?
• What makes you agree with proposals to increase taxes on e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches that are actually reducing healthcare burdens?
• How can you support prohibitionist government policies or high vape taxes that will only foster black markets in novel nicotine products, promoting unregulated, illicit contraband and gang violence?
• Why do you celebrate your addiction to coffee and welcome your daily dose of caffeine, but treat vaping as a more serious addiction?
• Are you embracing conclusions of weak studies (claiming health effects from vaping, some mythical gateway effect to smoking or false data on an epidemic of youth vaping) on emotional grounds that make you want to believe the data is significant?
• Or is it just because you and your organisation are paid handsomely by one of Michael Bloomberg’s NGOs and have no choice but to drink his Kool-Aid?

In any case, I don’t feel burdened by the kind of bias that pollutes your rationality. So I can look at a substance like nicotine, see the health benefits and be reasonable. That is why I can easily justify my decision to start vaping.

---

If you enjoyed this read (free with no ads), why not support The Risk-Monger via Patreon? Become a Gold-Monger patron from 5 € / $ per month and get David’s newsletter.