Talk:Nicotine

Tobacco vs nicotine

Much of this page has to do with Tobacco and smoking - not Nicotine. Many of the health effects listed are either not differentiated or not related to nicotine. I suggest that much of that information be moved to tobacco and smoking and a single link be left. More information about nicotine alone would be nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.245.153.165 (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. While it would be nice to have separate research on each, the simple fact is that tobacco is the number one delivery system for nicotine by a long shot. As a result, there is bound to be overlap and imprecision, but more than that, the bulk of studies relating to the effects of nicotine are likely going to be bound up in research covering its primary delivery vehicle. If you spot references or sections that are clearly unrelated to nicotine, by all means edit away. But I think removing data that comes from studies that relate to nicotine that is delivered via tobacco would impoverish the article to no good end. Now, if some of the information here is lacking from the corresponding tobacco related articles, by all means copy it to those articles; while gross duplication is generally to be avoided, some situations do not improve by a slavish adherence to this principle. I would argue this is such a situation. Apophenian Alchemy (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Large part of this article have to do with tobacco smoking and nothing to do with nicotine. Nicotine is a chemical and should be treated as such. 86.20.150.29 (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC) " While it would be nice to have separate research on each, the simple fact is that tobacco is the number one delivery system for nicotine by a long shot." - E-cigarettes are exploding in popularity now, and I think this article is starting to look a little bit dated with the conflation of 'tobacco' and 'nicotine'. Many people will now be reading this page to find out about nicotine exclusively, with the references to the health effects of tobacco confusing the subject (and also being unnecessarily duplicated across wiki pages). I would advocate a massive change to this page. Worth considering that tobacco contains MAOIs, which are partially responsible for tobacco's addictive properties and psychological properties, and that a lot of the citations made for the effects of nicotine are actually for the effects of tobacco. Earfetish1 (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Nicotine, Vitamins?

This actually kinda goes with the question under mine. Niacin (also called Nicotinic Acid according to Wikipedia), is both in Tobacco and it is a metabolite of nicotine according to my research. I also doubt the effects of nicotine as a stimulant.

I haven't been able to find anything personally, but from personal experience, when I smoke a cigarette and it's not well lit it seems to have more similar effect to Carbon Monoxide poisoning (reference wikipedia) than to a stimulant, but it also seems to have some effects similar to cleaning your system with Niacin.

my question is, does Nicotine take the place of the B3 vitamins (considering the term vitamin encompasses multiple chemicals), and it's "stimulant" effects come from over use (abuse) of what the vitamin does, and does this so called "addiction" just come from having lower vitamin levels than your body is used to because you've been taking Nicotine and it's been "supplementing" (building a tolerance) your vitamin intake to extremely high levels building a tolerance to this vitamin.

My doctor told me to take flushing type niacin to help quit smoking. it helped. i don't know the mechanics of it though. - Stillwaterising (talk) 09:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The chemical structure of niacin, also known as "nicotinic acid", is significantly different from nicotine, and its pharmacological effects bear little if any similarity to the effects of nicotine. Consequently, any discussion of niacin on this Wikipedia page is irrelevant. The niacin molecule resembles part of the nicotine molecule; it may possibly be a metabolite of nicotine, it may occur in the nicotine biosynthetic pathway, and historically it was obtained from nicotine by chemical degradation (see its Wikipedia page), which probably explains the name, but its relationship to nicotine is otherwise unimportant. Niacin is outside the scope of this article. Chemical names can often be misleading. Another substance found in tobacco, and also abundant in coffee, is called "chlorogenic acid", but it does not contain any chlorine atoms, and does not generate chlorine. Tachyon (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

In the 'Chemistry' section of the main article it is claimed [69] that nicotine is oxidized by ultraviolet or other agents to form nicotinic acid or vitamin B3. Such it can be considered to be the B3 provitamin!! As politically incorrect as it sounds, I think Wikipedia should include this fact. danleonida@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.114.128.7 (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

It can't be called a provitamin because it's not converted to niacin in the body. It's necessarily converted to niacin outside the body. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 23:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, Seppi! Are you saying that the oxidizing of nicotine to niacin cannot be done inside and only outside the body? Are you sure, and if you are, have you got a URL for it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danleonida (talk • contribs) 22:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Is Nicotine the Addictive Component in Tobacco Smoke?

See also: "addictivity of nicotine" below. Perhaps merge. There is a glaring contradiction in this article about if nicotine is addictive or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.45.4 (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

smoking is a very deadly thing and you shouldn't ever start smoking.

Hello. I tried to argue against this point in the article but it was removed (poorly cited, ok I could have done better and biased/non-neutral, which I don't agree with as this suggests that any evidence to the contrary is unacceptable). There is a large body of evidence to support the idea that nicotine is not the addictive component of tobacco smoke (by the way, I don't smoke or support tobacco consumption, cigarettes are just as deadly whether or not nicotine is the reason they are addictive).

The point is, if there is another (or several) compound(s) that are the main cause then our research into nicotine to cure tobacco addiction is wrong and will therefore affect tobacco sales (increase them).

Most original papers that utilised nicotine used concentrations that were far too high compared to a cigarette puff or even an entire cigarette. Delivery methods did not remotely reflect smoking inhalation.

I don't want to be the champion of this cause but it is a major point that must be addressed in the article immediately.

No, without some good references, it does not need to be addressed in the article. If there is a large body of evidence to support the idea that nicotine is not the addictive component of tobacco usage, then it should be easy to find. Alternately, there is a large body of evidence to support the idea that nicotine (at levels provided by cigarettes) is addictive. And there is strong evidence that nicotine replacement helps break the addictiveness of cigarettes. [1] (There may be other ingredients that are also addictive; I haven't looked for evidence for or against that idea.) Astgtciv (talk) 14:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Given that chewing tobacco is just as, if not more addictive than cigarettes, logic would dictate the addictive component(s) must be shared by both habits. Nicotine is the primary chemical they both have in common. But the strongest evidence supporting the addictive properties of nicotine is the fact that nicotine patches (which administer only nicotine) function to reduce or eliminate cravings associated with smoking/chewing.
--K10wnsta (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This may sound ridiculous, but what about heightened levels of carbon monoxide/dioxide. Some effects of cigarettes seem to be synonymous with carbon monoxide poisoning.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.67.84.120 (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

This is out of my area of expertise, but I was able to find at least one scholarly article that supports the assertion that "Nicotine is the main addictive component of tobacco that motivates continued use despite the harmful effects." [2] -Callit (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The difficulty is that nicotine, all on it's own, is not as addictive as heroin. Cigarettes may be, but nicorette gum, which contains little else but nicotine is not. Take into account all the other NRT's, if nicotine itself was the sole cause of cigarette addiction, then why wouldn't NRT's have a nearly perfect success rate? Cigarettes don't taste good, they may have once, but now very few smokers actually want a cigarette. And yet, they try the NRT's and the NRT's fail, and they go back to the horrible tasting death stick. Other issues include the fact that tomatoes contain nicotine, and there's no epidemic of people sucking on ketchup bottles. I thinnk the reason is likely a matter of correlation error, cigarettes are addictive, cigarettes contain nicotine, so they decided that nicotine MUST be addictive. the test in this case would really be if they can remove all of the nicotine, and find that cigarettes are still addictive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.28.113 (talk) 11:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The non-addictiveness of nictotine is well sourced on the german version of this article...sources 25-27... 79.102.215.252 (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Jon O'

Psychoactive effects section

this section has no sources, and makes big claims (in my opinion strongly biased).someone please improve this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.164.127.140 (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Contradicting claims

This section claims that the nicotine's psychoactive profile varies from stimulating to sedative with the increasing dosage. However, this source is cited on Tobacco Smoking, which claims the opposite.

"Studies have suggested that low doses have a depressant effect, while higher doses have stimulant effect."

Also, it appears that the such claims made in "Psychoactive effects" section on Nicotine are devoid of any sources.--Igorhb (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, why is there a statement in this section indicating that nicotine is not addictive? If there is some argument about addictive property of nicotine shouldn't it go in the addiction section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.194.225 (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

half Life.

i suggeest we expand notes on the halflife of nicotine, what does this do to the substance? how does it change exactly, are any properties different? am i completely wrong in my questioning and there is just less of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.112.51 (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This is about biological half time. For example, when you smoke a cigar, the nicotine level on your blood rises. After the half time has passed (which is 2 hours for nicotine), the nicotine level of your blood is halved. Get it? It's not the same kind of half time that we use in psychics. Yeah. There's just less of it.

--91.154.52.137 (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Can someone explain why something would be processed in this way? I mean, with alcohol, your liver can process, say, 1 drink per hour.. meaning such-and-such-milliliters-of-alcohol-per-hour.. but here with nicotine you're saying ANY amount will be halved in 2 hours, then halved again in 2 more hours.. uh.. what? Surely the organs process it at a particular rate, and if it takes 2 hours for, say, 80 milligrams, it'll take another 2 hours to get the remaining 80 mg.... right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

First off, peak nicotine blood concentration is achieved in about 10 minuties and the halflife is only 20 minuties. The reason for the different times of drug elimination from the body is because, unlike alcohol(which is much slower), nicotine enters the blood and reaches the brain in about 7 seconds. The ease and quickness of nicotine to enter blood and circulate around the body to filter organs like the liver and kidneys is the reason the halflife is short. --Dam59 (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Controlled Substances Act.

Why isn't nicotine on the DEA schedule? Couldn't one make a case against the government, that by failing to include nicotine in the list it makes them liable? Or maybe one could argue that because nicotine is not on the list drug x, y, and z should also not be on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.214.11.170 (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not general discussion or advocacy regarding the topic. see WP:FORUM. google is your friend, and general forums are your friend. or, write your congressperson. this page, however, is not where to find your answer. Anastrophe (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The DEA, ha! Your talking about the same biased clowns that continue to say that cannabis has no medical value in the face of overwhelming evidence. DEA be held liable for not scheduling nicotine, ha! Give me a break. multiple lolz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.234.131.185 (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The question to me is Is there a Wikipedia article which in any sense answers the question Why isn't nicotine on the DEA schedule??
Laurel Bush (talk) 11:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

First synthesis

• The first synthesis is 1893-1904, depending on which article on nicotine you read.
• I remebmer that there is a publication stating that the first synthesis yielded the R-nicotine not the natural S-nicotine

This needs clearification. --12:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Apparently, Tanya was here. Not for long. AlexRochon (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Link to Circulatory Disease

Looking at http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/Factsheets/health_effects.htm, it would appear that

1. Fielding JE, Husten CG, Eriksen MP. Tobacco: Health Effects and Control. In: Maxcy KF, Rosenau MJ, Last JM, Wallace RB, Doebbling BN (eds.). Public Health and Preventive Medicine. New York: McGraw-Hill;1998;817–845 [cited 2006 Dec 5]

would have information on the links to circulatory disease. 74.126.10.211 (talk) 04:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Aren't there a lot of substances in tobacco besides nicotine? That seems like a link to tobacco, as opposed specifically to nicotine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.89.228 (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Smoking reduces probability of AD onset

I take issue with the reference supporting this particular statement: it comes from a rabidly pro-smoking site called forces.org, and the large majority of the studies it cites have a sample population of less than 200; the only large one, with close to 4000, has no controls, and was based on questionnaires. Since the compiler is obviously biased, one can't rely on her to have considered studies and reports that don't support her conclusion, which is, in fact, what she did not do. No less importantly, almost all the studies are rather old, done between the 60's and 80's. But I am not going to remove these references, as I don't want to get into a paste-cut war with the true believer who put them in there. I will point to four very recent articles citing studies with relatively large samples that disprove the conclusions of . Lavidia (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't wish to be labeled by anybody as "rabidly pro-smoking", but it appears to me that your conclusions that these studies can be labeled irrelevant based on the fact that some of them were conducted in previous decades seems in itself biased. Does there mere age somehow mean that there findings should be ignored? Does it mean that other, newer studies could not reach the same conclusions or contradict the four studies that you cited? After all, there is nothing unusual about different studies reaching conflicting conclusions (this is common). This page, as part of a neutral encyclopedia, should be debticated to providing all findings (positive, nuetral, and negative) about the drug in question. Metalhead1994 —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Nicotine therapy link

In the Further Reading section of the article, there was a reference to an article by a freelance science journalist that cites studies but largely ignores the issue of sample populations and methods used. As with the Alzheimer's studies pointed above, the few ones she cites have very small sample populations. Also, she focuses on ADHD, but goes on to gloss over studies about other diseases that could be treated with nicotine. A link in the same section,to a Guardian article on nicotine therapy, was dead, so I removed it. Lavidia (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC) [User:Admrilbubba|Admrilbubba]] (talk) 09:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)The mention of individuals with schizophrenia smoking for the nicotine benefit is true but an incomplete. As a supervisor for a program in a mental heath agency who’s goal was to help mental health clients obtain employment,then go on to living as independently as they able. Our behavioral plans usually included a goal to cut back in their smoking. We did recognize the chemical elements,mostly nicotine was a therapeutic agent. One aspect was the pharmacological benefits, the mixture of their daily medication with the chemicals,most of which was nicotine helped calmed the symptoms of their disease. The other part smoking played was the passing of time in a boring world. Many prior to a work program sat for hours watching TV, staring out a window watching the grass grow. The Cigarette put something in their hand that required action and reaction from the individual. The nicotine helped them mellow out,it was self-medication. We noticed a drastic drop in how much nicotine they consumed after going to work. At work the amount of time they could smoke was a very limited and they were using their hands and minds on a matter other than boredom from watching grass grow. In the first week we did note behavior flexing but with passing of time, that element lessened and sometimes disappeared.To further substantiate the link of nicotine and schizophrenia as a therapeutic agent, I noticed a comparison of Developmentally Disabled and those with Mental Illness; and the subset,those who have schizophrenia. These two major groups 'MI" and 'DD' are the primary groups we worked with, of which are many subset groups. The ‘DD’ seldom smoke, were as the majority of schizophrenia clients did smoke. I was amazed to realize the majority of DD folks who also had schizophrenia smoked as well. I also realized a majority who had some other subset mental health issues smoked as well. These observations have taught me to agree with the author believing the reality of Nicotine is an aid for the relief of the schizophrenia symptoms and is also a calming agent giving aid for hours.True too is the action of self medication. Rev.Cantrell,B 24 Sept 09 0530hr.

added a citation to the original scientific publication relating to reduced risk of kaposis sarcoma as to provide better context than the associated press interview, put the section on BRCA gene breast cancer risk on a new paragraphso as to seperate it form the kaposis sarcoma section,and added that kaposis sarcoma is HIV related, this may not have been obvious to people with limited medical knowledge. Jimmy joe joeseph (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

One aspect of the schizophrenia/nicotine self-medication comments in the article is a complete absence of reference to smoking levels in other psychiatric groups, but especially to that of patients with depression. It's reasonably well known that rates of smoking are higher in patients with depression and depressive episodes, too. While this likely constitutes OR, I can't help but remark that depression is a large part of the clinical picture of the progression of schizophrenia; it's possible that the prominent negative symptoms of schizophrenia might masquerade as depressive symptoms, I don't know. I believe, though don't know off the top of my head, that smoking rates are higher in many psychiatric populations. My experience is largely as a patient with chronic depression, as a part of schizo-affective disorder, so that's where my familiarity lies. The above commenter seems to suggest that part of the increased smoking rates may be explained by boredom (nicotine is known to increase one's ability to attend to long, boring tasks), but I'm skeptical of such folksy explanations. I would like some documentation before such a claim finds its way into the article. I would like to see this aspect of the article expanded to include both nicotine and smoking's relationship to depressed populations (in addition to ADHD, Parkinson's, etc.), and also to include its relevance to psychiatric populations as a whole. Alas, I hope somebody else is willing. I am not. Apophenian Alchemy (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

"Interactions" section needed

Nicotine interacts with many other drugs that are used medicinally or otherwise. For instance, the following study is about its interactions with citalopram and reboxetine. (Andreasen JT, Redrobe JP. Nicotine, but not mecamylamine, enhances antidepressant-like effects of citalopram and reboxetine in the mouse forced swim and tail suspension tests. Behav Brain Res. 2008 Aug 22. PMID: 18786574). Holt's book "Food and Drug Interactions" also lists many drug-drug interactions for nicotine. Fuzzform (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

--Admrilbubba (talk) 09:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)The mention of individuals with schizophrenia smoking for the nicotine benefit is true but an incomplete. As a supervisor for a program in a mental heath agency who’s goal was to put mental health clients to work,then on to living as independently as they could. Our behavioral plans usually included a goal to cut back in their smoking. We did recognize the chemical elements,mostly nicotine were a therapeutic agent. One aspect was the pharmacological benefits, the mixture of their daily medication with the chemicals,most of which was nicotine helped calmed the symptoms of their disease. The other part smoking played was the passing of time in a boring world. Many prior to a work program sat for hours watching TV, staring out a window watching the grass grow. The Cigarette puts something in their hand that required action and reaction from the individual. The nicotine helped them mellow out,it was self-medication. There was a drastic drop in how much nicotine they consumed after going to work. At work the amount time they could smoke was a very limited. In the first week we did note behavior flexing and with passing of time, even that seem to disappear.To further substantiate the link of nicotine and schizophrenia as a therapeutic agent, note a comparison of Developmentally Disabled and those with schizophrenia . This was the two primary groups we worked with and they are the two major groups out of which come many subset groups. The ‘DD’ seldom smoke were as the schizophrenia clients did. I was amazed at the DD folks who also had schizophrenia did smoke,and those who had some other mental health issues did so as well. From that observation I stand with what I believe to be the truth Nicotine is an aid for the relief of the schizophrenia symptoms and is also a calming agent giving aid for hours Rev.Cantrell,B 24 Sept 09 0530hr

'Liquid Smoking'

Would this article be a good place to mention 'Liquid Smoking' a cigarette replacement drink. It would be interesting to know what herb it is based on. Several articles say it contains 15% nicotine. I don't think so! http://news.google.co.uk/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn&ncl=1262995256&topic=m 78.146.120.145 (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, 'Liquid Smoking' products are marketed as an 'alternative' to smoking tobacco. However, few (if any) contain any nicotine. Also, that link is now broken, but a quick websearch is all you need to find more info. Personally, I think it's a load of rubbish, and reccoment an e-cigarette for it's marketed effects. Elcaballooscuro (talk) 10:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Other intake routes

Should Snus be a reason to add a new intake route, as it is not really smoked, insufflated nor chewed, rather absorbed though skin. Should an additional route "absorbed" be added? (Johan8x (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC))

Is these a valid source?

I'm trying to compell sources to the paragraph History and name, and therefore asks the above question (especially regarding the second one): Jack E. Henningfield; Mitch Zeller (2006). ""Nicotine psychopharmacology", research contributions to United States and global tobacco regulation: A look back and a look forward" (PDF). 184 (3–4): 286–291. doi:10.1007/s00213-006-0308-4. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) and http://medicolegal.tripod.com/toxicchemicals.htm Comptes rendus, 1903, 137, p 860

Gsmgm (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Toxicology!

Please see the link to this study: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0004849 this study provides strong evidence that nicotine causes upregulation of the FOXM1 gene, which is linked to cell mutation. Overexpression of FOXM1 is associated with many forms of cancer, and the study specifically demonstrates the upexpression of FOXM1 in cancerous and precancerous oral tissues, while also reproducibly demonstrating nicotine's upexpression of FOXM1. An editor must provide a sentence discussing this finding on the nicotine page. I have been considering switching to electronic cigarettes and had relied on the wiki page and its assertions that nicotine has not been found carcinogenic! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.228.189 (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Only a study demonstrating increased cancer rates in real people who use unadulterated nicotine or who use another substance that leads to FOXM1 expression can constitute "strong evidence". Even though FOXM1 expression causes cancer formation, external factors that express FOXM1 may potentially mitigate FOXM1 mutagenesis through other mechanisms. The language the researchers used indicates clearly that this potential carcinogenic mechanism is speculative in nature and requires further study. 71.96.225.98 (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The primary source indicating nicotine's mutagenicity no longer exists. I rather hoped to find out just how dangerous nicotine alone is, but unsourced information might as well originate from an acid trip. Can anyone find a new source? 71.96.225.98 (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

What primary source are you talking about? What is it that no longer exists? Looie496 (talk) 18:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The sphere model

Someone please verify (because I am no chemistry expert) the sphere model for nicotine that is shown in the right hand side portal. The line drawing suggests that hydrogen atom is coming out of the paper which means that the pentagon ring should point away from screen in the sphere model that is shown. a 14:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Dependence and withdrawal

This statement: "Due to an increase in reward pathway sensitivity, nicotine withdrawal is relatively mild compared to alcohol or heroin withdrawal." in the Dependence and withdrawal section seems to contradict other topics in the article. Also I cant find any source that refers to nicotine withdrawal as "mild", "relatively" or otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amzran (talk • contribs) 20:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm just looking at this article for the first time. There are lots of poorly worded sentences here, and this is one of them, but I think it's basically correct. It's not so much that nicotine withdrawal is mild in an absolute sense as that heroin withdrawal is utter unendurable misery while alcohol withdrawal can actually be fatal in extreme cases. Looie496 (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This entire section is very poorly written. Certain sentences are entirely nonsensical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.204.217 (talk) 08:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

History

Following this book (pag 115) nicotine has been isolated first time in 1807 by Gaspare Cerioli and in 1809 by Louis-Nicolas Vauquelin, twenty years before Posselt and Reimann. --150.146.18.34 (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Chemistry section

The text reads: its vapors will combust at 308 K (35 °C; 95 °F) in air despite a low vapor pressure.
Nicotine's MSDS on erowid.org gives a Flash point of 95°C and Auto-ignition temperature: 240°C. Someone should maybe verify all the data? 81.165.78.108 (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Nicotine smokeless filters, are they harmful? I called smoke assist, and confirmed they sell two types of filter; one that contain 21mg of nicotine, and another has zero.

I am concerned that the nicotine filter may harm my family through the vapor that is released.

Will 2nd hand vapors vapors harm my children.

I appreciate all the volunteer whom help wikipedia provide impportant information to the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.24.215 (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

addictivity of nicotine

There seems to be a strong contradiction regarding the addictivity of nicotine.

In the section "Psychoactive effects" it is stated that

"Technically, nicotine is not significantly addictive, as nicotine administered alone does not produce significant reinforcing properties.[44]"

while in the withdrawal section it is claimed that

"In many studies [nicotine] has been shown to be more addictive than cocaine and heroin.[49][50][51]"

This issue should be resolved, since they are total in opposition of each other. The latter statement is backed up by primarily New York Times articles, which are more about the general addiction of smoking, then nicotine in particular. Furthermore, are NYT articles "scientifical" enough for using it as a reference, regarding the strict psychoactive and addictive properties of nicotine? Latrocinia (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like this page was written by a tobacco corporation. G Fawkes. --201.230.85.196 (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, is nicotine addictive or not?

potential NicVAX resource

New Help for Smokers An anti-nicotine vaccine is moving closer to regulatory approval By Jeneen Interlandi Scientific American September 6, 2011

99.181.147.68 (talk) 06:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Nicotine Sulfate

In the introduction it says that nicotine is used as a pesticide. Reference [4] from the Denver master Gardener website says that it is nicotine sulfate which is used as a pesticide. Are these two chemicals synonymous, or should this be changed? Prymal (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

"Side-Effects" Poster

This seems to be more anti-smoking propaganda than actual side-effects of nicotine. It lists only negative effects (and extremes, at that -- I don't know of anyone having diarrhea from smoking), without giving so much as a nod to neutral or positive effects of nicotine. (Also, joint pain? Abnormal dreams? This entire poster is obviously anti-smoking propaganda; should find a more reliable source -- erowid?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.245.107 (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this image seems very biased towards showing only the negative effects of the drug. 71.169.187.76 (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I became suspicious reading that nicotine is a carcinogen, which is news to me, a smoker and now ecig vaper and many of those who chew nicotine gum licensed as a drug. I looked back at the the talk history and foundd this point has been raised before. Shame, but I now bracket this page with the passive smoking page - an outlet for crazy anti tobacco propaganda.(130.88.123.137 (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC))

Gosh, Humphrey Bogart resurrected with other heroes who died from cancer!... You know guys, today I cant believe that I also used to be a nicotinejunkie and say the same kind of crazy junkie propaganda, and in my time and place there were very little talk that smoking kills and not even a tiny health warning on packages at all. But you have plenty of sources in this very article that smoking causes almost all kinds of cancer and other awful things. Not to mention scientists even cigarette-producers say that tobacco causes cancer, and still you grumble instead of quitting. 83.149.45.78 (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Health effects

How come there is no content about nicotine health effects? In most drugs there is thorough information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F06:423:F004:0:0:567E:6229 (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

There isn't? I see extensive sections entitled "Pharmacology", "Psychoactive effects", "Dependence and withdrawal", "Toxicology", and "Therapeutic uses". DMacks (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Response - Look at it this way; if you drink coffee, the main stimulant is Caffeine. It is strange, but somehow coffee and tobacco produce the same health effects. However, smoking tobacco products can cause various types of cancer and health disease. Not to mention the negative "cardiac" consequences that both Caffine and Nicotine can affect the human body. Personally, this is what I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.129.194 (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Chemical Synthesis

No such information is present in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.129.194 (talk) 13:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Redundant, fragmented, and confusing grammar

I'll try and be brief and apologize in advance for any formatting mistakes as this is my first post of any kind in the Wikipedia system. I was sent to this article and while I was reading, specifically in the second paragraph of the "Dependence and Withdrawal" section, I noticed the following:

" Like other physically addictive drugs, nicotine withdrawal causes down-regulation of the production of dopamine and other stimulatory neurotransmitters as the brain attempts to compensate for artificial stimulation. As dopamine regulates the sensitivity of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors decreases. To compensate for this compensatory mechanism, the brain in turn upregulates the number of receptors, convoluting its regulatory effects with compensatory mechanisms meant to counteract other compensatory mechanisms "

This may or may not be accurate as I am not an expert on nicotine. However, this passage is worded poorly enough that I felt the need to point it out so that someone might make it clearer. The second sentence is either a fragment or the verb tense for the word decrease might be incorrect, I'm not sure which; the opening to the sentence that follows is redundant enough that I had to read it several times. Compensatory is used three times, and compensate also used once; upregulates and regulatory are both used, and the word mechanism or its plural are used three times. I do not feel qualified to make any edits because I may be misunderstanding the passage in advance.

Please take the time to address this, as I likely will not personally do so. I hope that the passage may ultimately be improved so as to be more understandable and in line with the quality that as a more-or-less average user, I tend to expect from Wikipedia.

Ethertonm (talk) 02:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. That section desperately needs a clarifying rewrite. I came to the talk section to see if anybody was working to "un-obfuscate" it. Anybody?

I too found the passage poorly worded. I'm surprised no one has fixed it yet.

OCD = "Over the Counter Disease"???

I have removed the text that suggestd that OCD is an acronym for "over the counter disease". 114.76.75.113 (talk) 04:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

more links in the biosynthesis part

i want to understand how it works, but there are many for me unknown words in the biosynthesis part. Help spreading knowledge for us who don't know by linking more to relevant articles! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.90.246.194 (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Trade names

Nicorette and Nicotrol are not trade names for nicotine, but brands for nicotine delivery devices. Chemical Engineer (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Objection to Electronic Cigarettes being presented as NRT.

"Therapeutic uses

The primary therapeutic use of nicotine is in treating nicotine dependence in order to eliminate smoking with the damage it does to health. Controlled levels of nicotine are given to patients through gums, dermal patches, lozenges, electronic/substitute cigarettes or nasal sprays in an effort to wean them off their dependence."

This is wrong. Electronic cigarettes are not, never have been or ever will be a means to wean off nicotine. They are an alternative nicotine delivery method NOT a cure like gums and patches are supposed to be. Please correct the inaccuracy.31.52.170.164 (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Role of Wolffenstein in identifying the structure of nicotine?

I'm trying to understand whether it's appropriate to credit Richard Wolffenstein (chemist) as a co-discoverer of the structure of nicotine, which seems to have been asserted in an anonymous edit on 31 October 2010 (which also corrected some vandalism). I just went ahead and added a citation to the 1891 paper they co-authored, "Ueber Nicotin", which I think is the source of the attribution. However, as far as I can tell (with my very limited knowledge of German and organic chemistry), this paper does not describe the chemical structure of nicotine but rather is "On the action of benzoyl chloride on nicotine" ("Ueber die Einwirkung von Benzoylchlorid auf Nicotin"). Likewise, the obituary in German linked to from the Wolffenstein article does not seem to mention anything about Wolffenstein's work on nicotine. And note that this article about Adolf Pinner (written by a descendent) gives two older sources (including the 11th Edition of Encylopedia Britannica, 1910) which attribute credit for deducing the structure of nicotine solely to Pinner. Can anyone with a better knowledge of German and/or chemistry chime in? Noamz (talk) 14:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I didn't realize that this edition of the Britannica is actually online. Here is the entry on nicotine, which indeed includes the line, "The constitution of nicotine was established by A. Pinner (see papers in the Berichte, 1891 to 1895)." Noamz (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Isn't nicotine an allergen that triggers asthma attacks?

I think it's absurd to emphasize cases where it might help with asthma attacks and ignore all the cases where it triggers the damn things. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

You're confusing the effects of nicotine in isolation which is what this article is about, with the effects of cigarette smoke which does trigger asthma attacks (and where nicotine is but one of many compounds). 121.91.41.126 (talk) 04:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

5-HTP and L--Tyrosine - anecdotal evidence

I'm not expert in this area, so can't comment on the veracity of the claims. However, in section 'Dependence and withdrawal', the last paragraph clearly refers to anecdotal evidence.

If the evidence is anecdotal, then does it really belong in an encylopaedia? Suggest further citations should be given, or the section appropriately re-worded. 94.192.143.58 (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, and I've removed that paragraph. I'm not sure how it snuck in past our watchful eyes. Looie496 (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

It was added on 8 November 2012 by JennaferPC (talk · contribs). She also added the same material to Smoking cessation, and I've removed it there too. Looie496 (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Bias: Bad References

"and can stimulate abnormal proliferation of vascular endothelial cells, similar to that seen in atherosclerosis.[59]"

I just read all of reference 59. The entire paper is here: https://www.mcdb.ucla.edu/VBTG/Review_Tontonoz.pdf

There is no mention of "nicotine" anywhere in that paper, nor any evidence offered to substantiate the above quoted statement. I will be removing that statement and the reference from the article. I hope this seemingly made-up reference isn't an indication of significant bias in the rest of the "Nicotine" article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.30.231 (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect dependence liability

Nicotine isn't highly addicting when it's administered by itself.

Studies have shown that the other alkaloids in Tobacco are Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors. Nicotine is primarily metabolized by MAO and due to the other alkaloids in Tobacco causing the inhibition of these enzymes - that results in much higher plasma levels of Nicotine for a much longer period of time. This allows Nicotine to have a much broader and more significant effect on nACh. This, in turn, causes a much higher likelihood of addiction to Nicotine and the other alkaloids in Tobacco.

These Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors are likely to be addicting in their own right and may explain the reason why Nicotine replacement therapies do not satisfy all cravings when it is used instead of Tobacco.

It has also, recently, been reveal that nicotine does not activate the α7 nACh receptor channel to the same extent when co-applied with menthol. Similar findings have also been reported for α4β2 nACh receptors within the α7 nACh receptor has been suggested to contribute to menthol binding, thus increasing the likelihood of addiction to Nicotine.

I personally believe that it should be stated in the article that Nicotine is much more addictive when found in Tobacco, due to the other alkaloids that are also grown in the Tobacco plants. Therefore, I also believe that the dependence liability should be changed to Moderate.

This article is about Nicotine specifically. I believe it's inappropriate to have the dependence liability of Nicotine include the increased addiction potential caused by the other alkaloids in Tobacco. The dependence liability should only be for when Nicotine is coexisting alone in the body.

I would have done this, however, I believe it would have caused an "uproar". I have the sources, but I wanted to receive user feedback on the matter, before I made the change.

I've read this more than once in the past year on many different studies about Nicotine. I am actively searching for those studies again, however, here's what I retrieved to far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwampFox556 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23919443 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23898298

SwampFox556 (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Production

with a growing market for both nicotine based smoking cessation products and smoking alternatives that contain nicotine such as e-ciggaretts, can we have some data on production of nicotine for these pathways? Is it extracted from tobacco, or synthesized? What country leads production of this form (not sure what the word is:stand alone? pharmaceutical?) of nicotine? 172.7.164.50 (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Sandy

That's a good question! I assume it's extracted from tobacco or similar sources, given how cheap cigarettes are (assuming they aren't mostly doped with synthetic nicotine). I found this comment: "As for the genus Nicotiana, tabacum is used principally for smoking purpose, whereas rustica, which usually contains higher levels of nicotine...has been cultivated specifically for the extraction of nicotine to be used in insecticidal preparations." (Schmeltz, Irwin. "Nicotine and other tobacco alkaloids". pp 99–136 in Naturally occurring insecticides. 1971. New York: Marcel Dekker.). That was written well before e-cigs and nic-patches existed, so at least as of the early 1970s, extraction sounds like the commercially important source. DMacks (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Questioning of the LD50 - original "research"?

In the Toxicology section appears: "However the widely used human LD50 estimate of 0.5–1.0 mg/kg has been questioned in light of several documented cases of humans surviving much higher doses." This line seems like it was inserted by the author of the reference, and I have some problems with the reference cited. First of all, the author does not seem to understand what LD50 means. Of course people will survive perhaps much larger doses than the LD50. Otherwise it would not be the LD50! Much of the article focuses on cases of ingestion, which for large doses will certainly cause vomiting, where it is then very difficult to determine the actual amount absorbed. 65.190.181.5 (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

physically addicting?

today User:‎DarkGhost909, in these difs, changed the text from (note, I am changing ref tags to make this readable here): "Like other physically addictive drugs, nicotine withdrawal causes downregulation of the production of dopamine and other stimulatory neurotransmitters as the brain attempts to compensate for artificial stimulation" to: "Nicotine addiction is purely psychological and not physical(ref)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_dependence(/ref)" with an edit note saying: "At the Physical Dependence page, it says only certain sedatives, such as Alcohol and Heroin are physically addictive. Nicotine is a stimulant and isn't listed there.)"

I reverted in this dif with edit note: "wikipedia is not a reliable source, sorry! it is a good thing to question - will add "citation needed" tag in next edit". I did add the tag. I don't have time to research this now, but it should be done, and this article and the physical dependence article should be brought into line. Jytdog (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Biosynthesis error

The nicotine biosynthesis scheme has an incorrect structure for quinolinic acid. It would be great if whoever created the original file could update it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.203.70.137 (talk) 03:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Carcinogenicity

Much of the information on the role of nicotine as a carcinogen doesn't appear conclusive to me; while it may promote cell survival, proliferation and growth, these things aren't synonymous with mutagenisis. If we were to use those standards, then practically any growth factor you care to name would be carcinogenic. I'll accept that it may potentiate tumour growth, but I think there's a lot of confusion between the definite carcinogenic effects of tobacco smoke, which contains nicotine besides combustion products and a whole host of things, and the effects caused by nicotine itself. Nitrosamines derived from nicotine metabolism *are* carcinogenic, and that should probably be mentioned, but there is poor evidence that nicotine itself is.Arthur Swift (talk) 13:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

As far as our article is concerned, any alteration to it would need to be justified on the basis of reputable published sources. The literature on the carcinogenicity of nicotine is so vast that it isn't easy to get a feel for it as a whole. Looie496 (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Nick O'Teen

• I have tried twice to put this new section in page Nicotine, :-

:==In media==

• In some anti-smoking literature, the harm that tobacco smoking and nicotine addiction does is personified as Nick O'Teen, represented as a humanoid with some aspect of a cigarette or cigarette butt about him or his clothes.<ref>[http://www.comicvine.com/nick-oteen/29-67121/ Nick O'Teen]</ref>
• but each time some IPA-user deletes it as not noteworthy. (I am in England.) I have seen much anti-smoking matter, including plenty of references to "Nick O'Teen", and to me this topic is noteworthy. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I've watched this mini-edit war. Anthony, notability has nothing to do with how anybody feels. Please read WP:NOTABILITY - you need to find reliable sources that discuss this topic and relate it to the topic of this article - nicotine; ideally at least a couple of sources. I don't think you are going to find them. I do think you could find plenty of sources that discuss this character in light of public health anti-smoking measures, and there is already probably content on public health anti-smoking measures in the welter of articles around cigarettes and smoking. I think that is where this belongs - not here. I suggest you find where those public health measures are discussed, and add this, there. Jytdog (talk) 12:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Nicotine lethal oral dose

I am new at WIKI. Could somebody update the data to nicotine toxicity?

Arch Toxicol (2014) 88:5–7 DOI 10.1007/s00204-013-1127-0 How much nicotine kills a human? Tracing back the generally accepted lethal dose to dubious self‑experiments in the nineteenth century http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00204-013-1127-0#page-1

New oral lethal dose: 500 - 1000 mg, or 0.5-1.0 grams (instead of 30-60mg)

Thank you all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.49.35.222 (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. VERY interesting! But unforunately, not a reliable source. We need to wait til editorial gets picked up by reviews and regulatory authorities. Thanks though Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

btw, the basis for what i just wrote, is our guideline for sourcing health related information, which is here: {{WP:MEDRS]]. We base health-related content on reviews in the biomedical literature, or statements of major scientific or medical bodies. Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Carcinogenic?

The toxicology section has a line that reads: research over the last decade has identified nicotine's carcinogenic potential in animal models and cell culture.[68][69]. The 1st study never specifically says nicotine demonstrates carcinogenic activity, and instead refers to tobacco smoke (in which case it's quite a jump to assume that it's not referring to the known carcinogens in tobacco smoke). The second study mentions possible carcinogenic vectors in the GI tract, but even then it's extremely preliminary and is a single study. That line reads as if there's a lot more evidence suggesting this claim than there actually is. I think it's prudent to revise the line to convey that it is a single study, and emphasize that as it was only in cell cultures, one cannot assume the same activity can be extrapolated to in-vivo. I would make the edits myself, but I feel it should be discussed first considering it's a fairly important sub-topic. LiamSP (talk) 10:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

re-org

I did a pretty big reorganization today. this still needs a lot more work. the key things that need to be better knitted together are "health effects" related things. we have pharmacology, toxicology, and the whole big section (now called "health effects") that was wrongly under the Medical Use section. Need to think about how to better integrate all this so that the article hangs together more... Jytdog (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Toxicology

This:

"It is unlikely that a person would overdose on nicotine through smoking alone, although overdose can occur through combined use of nicotine patches or nicotine gum and cigarettes at the same time. Spilling a high concentration of nicotine onto the skin can cause intoxication or even death, since nicotine readily passes into the bloodstream following dermal contact."

does not reflect the facts and the "real world".

According "overdose due to dual use": FDA has started a Workshop related to: "Risks and Benefits of Long-Term Use of Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) Products" in 2010. There was an Public Hearing according FDA Actions Related to Nicotine Replacement Therapies and Smoking-Cessation Products; Report to Congress on Innovative Products and Treatments for Tobacco Dependence in 2012. During the process, the FDA stated "OTC NRTs (gum and lozenges) do not seem to pose a significant risk of misuse or abuse among adolescents. We don’t know how other formulations would be used.". Finally, the FDA has announced in 2013: "Nicotine Replacement Therapy Labels May Change. The FDA state:

"There are no significant safety concerns associated with using more than one OTC NRT at the same time, or using an OTC NRT at the same time as another nicotine-containing product—including a cigarette. If you are using an OTC NRT while trying to quit smoking but slip up and have a cigarette, you should not stop using the NRT. You should keep using the OTC NRT and keep trying to quit."

even the "12-week-limit" is falling slightly:

"Users of NRT products should still use the product for the length of time indicated in the label—for example, 8, 10 or 12 weeks. However, if they feel they need to continue using the product for longer in order to quit, it is safe to do so in most cases. Consumers are advised to consult their health care professional if they feel the need to use an OTC NRT for longer than the time period recommended in the label."

In this light and because the fist sentence is allready marked with an "credibility-tag", the sentence should be deleted or (better) adjusted.

The second sentence is weird! I don't have access to the fulltext of "Lockhart: Nicotine poisoning (1933)" but recent findings (after 1933 ;) ) don't backup this claim. Example: Benowitz reported in 1987 on the case of a patient, who covered her skin with an nicotine diluent (400mg nicotine per ml) and survived it. He assumed: "skin may be a reservoir for slow release of nicotine into the circulation". In the review "Metabolism and Disposition Kinetics of Nicotine we are able to read:

"The rate of release of nicotine into the skin is controlled by the permeability of the skin, rate of diffusion through a polymer matrix, and/or rate of passage through a membrane in the various patches. The rates of nicotine delivery and plasma nicotine concentrations vary among the different transdermal systems (Fig. 3) (Fant et al., 2000). In all cases, there is an initial lag time of about 1 h before nicotine appears in the bloodstream, and there is continued systemic absorption (about 10% of the total dose) after the patch is removed, the latter due to residual nicotine in the skin."

Fig. 3 is showing, that after 1 h delay, nicotine from a nicotine patch (15mg to 21mg) is absorbed into the bloodstream with an rate of 5 mg per hour. Conflicting with "Fick's first law" the absorption rate of nicotine decreases, the higher the nicotine concentration is: The pure base (100% nicotine) is extremely slow absorbed with an rate of 82 µg/cm2 x h. This means: If you place pure nicotine on 10 cm2 skin, it will be absorbed with 0.8mg per hour (which basically corresponds to the absorbed nicotine of smoking a half cigarette).

Consistent: Like the first sentence, the second should be deleted or (better) adjusted.--Merlin 1971 (talk) 08:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Adjusted the first sentence, waiting for comments regarding the second.--Merlin 1971 (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

HOW LONG TILL NICOTINE IS REMOVED FROM YOUR SYSTEM AFTER QUITTING SMOKING ?

CAN ANYONE ADVISE ME ON THIS SUBJECT ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.214.21.210 (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Talk as a forum of one thread

"This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject."

Why not?! It would be perfect and very much needed IMHO! danleonida@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.114.128.7 (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why this was removed

"Little research is available in humans but animal research suggests there is potential in Parkinson's disease." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Doc James, it was not my intention to begin an edit war. My apologies, I'm still getting used to this. Let's talk about it. Please refer to the response to your inquiry on User talk:72.187.7.167. I'm happy to discuss this, but I'm not sure how constructive this back and forth is.Agrizz (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Agrizz The review does state there is some animal evidence and little human evidence for nicotine [3] in PD. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Doc James, I owe an apology - I did not recognize the editing change from "cotinine" to "nicotine". I read too quickly. I'm ok with its current usage, particularly now that it has been separated from the previous paragraph re: cotinine. Agrizz (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)