Talk:Nicotine

New nicotine image

What is this image doing in this article? There is a bit of red added to the image. How does one know what is the structure of a pronated nicotine made with a base of benzoic acid? QuackGuru (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Maybe Theislikerice can help us clarify what was the purpose of adding this image? --Signimu (talk) 09:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The purpose is to show the structure of protonated nicotine (e.g. which nitrogen is protonated) together with the structure of benzoate. Structure here means Lewis structure, not 3D structure. If you do an image search, you see there is some confusion about what nicotine salts are (e.g. this image) --Theislikerice (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

There is not enough content about the salts to justify an image. QuackGuru (talk) 13:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I think an image of the conjugate acid (protonated nitrogen) as compared to the neutral form is useful. I'd be fine with no counter-anion, or just generic "X^–". I added a cited note about the sign change and that this is specifically related to the protonation (not the specific counter-anion), so now there is an encyclopediac detail that an image comparing the two forms would support. It also likely changes the molecular geometry, though I don't have a ref handy. And "which nitrogen is protonated" is indeed something that is not obvious (though it does match the general pattern of pKa for 3° amine vs pyridine). DMacks (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

There is a paper on spectroscopy of nicotine salts supporting the protonation at the tertiary amine (Perfetti, T. A. (1983). Structural study of nicotine salts. Beiträge zur Tabakforschung/Contributions to Tobacco Research, 12(2), 43-54.) and a crystal structure of nicotine gentisate presented at a conference last year showing a hydrogen bond between the carboxylate group of the organic acid and the quaternary nitrogen of protonated nicotine (https://www.coresta.org/sites/default/files/abstracts/2019_ST15_YangJi.pdf). The specific counterion is not important, but it is relevant to show an organic anionic species because it can release the free base nicotine in the gas phase by reversing the acid/base reaction (nicotine chloride would not release nicotine into the gas phase upon heating but nicotine benzoate does).Theislikerice (talk) 13:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Commons has File:Nicotine molecule ball from xtal.png whose ref (1971 x-ray of salicylate) concurs. DMacks (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Covid-19

A small though respectable French study has suggested that nicotine may have an inhibitory effect on Covid-19 symptoms: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/22/french-study-suggests-smokers-at-lower-risk-of-getting-coronavirus Is it worth adding this to the article, or is it too tentative? --Ef80 (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

No serious dispute

Nicotine can harm adolescent brain development.

References

There is no serious dispute per WP:ASSERT and is it common knowledge the harms to brain development. Numerous WP:MEDRS compliant sources verify the exact same wording. QuackGuru (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

QuackGuru, I assume this is addressed to User:Zvi Zig? Their edit summary points to the previous discussion at Talk:Nicotine/Archive_2#Cognitive_harms_in_lede; it would be helpful to address the objections raised there. There is some proposed text at the end of that section, and User:HLHJ added claims to the lede in May 2019. QuackGuru actually removed this language in this edit with the summary "too much deytail again for lede". Zvi Zig removed some language which eventually got restored in this edit in May 2020, so I presume the proposed text did not achieve consensus. Given the reliable sources cited on both sides, perhaps the lede simply needs to say that authorities disagree on whether or not the evidence on this matter is definitive. There has been text on this subject in the "Adverse effects" section in the past, and it could go into detail (perhaps in a new subsection) explaining the differing secondary or tertiary opinions.

Claims of "common knowledge" have no place in resolving medical questions. Wikipedia:Common knowledge explains why. -- Beland (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The text that was recently removed from the body and lede was in the article for quite some time. There is literally hundreds of reviews that verify the same or similar claim. The previous lede was getting too long. Some content was eventually restored to the lede and summarised in the body. QuackGuru (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Stating in the lede that "authorities disagree on whether or not the evidence on this matter is definitive." is not supported by any source presented. Unsourced content should not be added to the lede. Among top-tier sources such as the CDC[1] and WHO[2] there is no disagreement. Also see the FDA: "As adolescent brains are still developing, nicotine exposure during youth and young adulthood can change the way the brain works, leading to a lifetime of addiction and, in some cases, causing long-lasting effects such as increased impulsivity and mood disorders."[3] QuackGuru (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I propose restoring both sentences[4][5] since they are accurate and neutral. The wording says it "can" not that it "will" harm adolescent brain development. See on page 59 of 2019 WHO report: "Apart from the known harmful effects of nicotine on the developing brain,...".[6] The details or debate can be expanded in the "Adverse effects" section. QuackGuru (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)