Talk:Nicotine

9.1 Legal Status

The section on legal status appears to have been updated following changes to US Law requiring purchasers of nicotine products be at least 21 years of age. While this was updated, the remainder of the section was left the same resulting in confusing and contradictory language; For example: "In the United States, nicotine products and Nicotine Replacement Therapy products like Nicotrol are only available to persons 21 and above" is followed immediately by "Many states in the US have implemented a Tobacco 21 law for tobacco products, raising the minimum age from 18 to 21." Since federal law supersedes state law in this case, the extra points regarding state laws are redundant. 172.251.144.6 (talk) 02:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

This page is clearly written with a bias.

While I agree with this agenda of stopping smoking, I'm even quite extreme on this being a prohibitionist, this page is clearly written with a major bias and not to inform readers in a neutral way. In the entire 5 opening paragraphs there is little mention of the drugs recreational use and it's high effects, referred only as a stimulant and anxiolyant, medical terms which mean very little to the common reader. None of the other major recreational drugs are written like this, for example Alcohols opening paragraph includes "induces happiness and euphoria" (more instantly understandable language) and goes in length about its effects, history of use and how and why people use it today. This page however spends maybe even 10 times longer speaking about the medical uses, almost all of which is the negation / dealing with the health effects of the recreational use. Even in the Uses page, recreation is listed right at the end with a paragraph that is half the length of the medical paragraph. After reading this page the typical reader will gain no real information on why nicotine is one of the most widely used drugs in the world, which is abundantly clear on other recreational drug pages. I see this also on other informative sites, which refer only to the symptoms of nicotine as negative "side effects" (while never clarifying what the "main effects" are). I think it is not unreasonable to believe these are written with a deceptive bias, and this is highly likely to turn off or frustrate other readers. I propose this page be heavily restructured with a priority on emphasising *relevant* information in a more natural order. 84.67.8.150 (talk) 10:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Chemistry

The info-box doesn't identify the chiral center, nor is there any indication that it is, indeed chiral. The chemistry section has one paragraph with (+)-, (-)- nomenclature and the next with the preferred (R)-, (S)- nomenclature. Could someone clean this up? The chemistry section also describes it as a "colorless to yellow-brown, oily liquid" which is just awful. I suspect, it is, when pure, colorless, while commercial material undoubtedly contains contaminants (which, I presume, give it various discoloration). (Amines are notoriously difficult to keep pure, aromatic nitrogen compounds are photosensitive, so it isn't surprising that commercial products are off-color, even if originally pure and colorless.) The info-box claims a few physical properties. I question this. First because it isn't likely that the racemic mixture has the same physical properties as the pure (R) or (S) compounds, and second because of the enormous temperature range in which it is -supposedly- a liquid. I question the liquid range is 326 degrees C (586 F), and I'd expect the racemate to have slightly different range. Finally, it is really strange and atypical that the info-box doesn't have the IUPAC systematic name (or names depending on whether property belongs to a specific isomer or a blend of the isomers. It would be notable, if true, for the natural product to be racemic. Is this claim verified or does it rely on crude analysis without a chain of custody to show no tautomerization/racemization didn't occur during collection and analysis?174.130.71.156 (talk) 12:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Nicotine itself is not nearly as addictive as thought.

Nicotine does not produce significant withdrawals on its own (such as when people consume nicotine through vaporizers) to most people except those extremely liable for physical dependency. All sources that state that nicotine itself is highly addictive point back to the same incredibly flawed information, such as the Surgeon General's report from 1988. They claimed that nicotine was the primary addictive component because tobacco smokers experience withdrawals, and nicotine was the chemical that produced the high. This is, in many cases, the _ONLY_ citation you're going to find, or things point back to it that have also not shown isolated nicotine to be highly addictive.

The addictive qualities of _tobacco_ are caused by MAOIs and, in cigarettes, acetaldehyde (not added directly but formed when heated) and other additives. While Nicotine is dopaminergic, it's not incredibly so, nowhere near enough to be considered heavily addictive. The MAOIs on their own would already be addictive, but reinforce the nicotine as well.

If you aren't already liable to be addicted to nicotine, it is about on-par with caffeine in terms of addictive qualities. Yukenk (talk) 22:08, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I apologise I am drunk and was reading through the page, immediately made an account to write this, without reading the guidelines. Yukenk (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Good article nomination

@Seppi333@QuackGuru@HLHJ. Is it okay if I nominate this article as a GA? Nagol0929 (talk) 13:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Nagol0929, it would need a lot of work. It's not very readable, the selection of information is odd and liable to be very controversial, and there are gaps. I'm not unwilling to help, but it would be a couple weeks before I could do much work on it. HLHJ (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

This would be my first big content creation. Would you be willing to coach me? Nagol0929 (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd strongly suggest another topic for your first big content creation. This one will be controversial and generally a pain. Due to WP:systemic bias, there are plenty of important topics with no content. That said, I find content creation quite rewarding, and I'd encourage you to get into it. I'd be happy to help if you want coaching. HLHJ (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Clarify that genotoxicity is only shown in vitro

The first sentence of Genotoxicity should probably read "Nicotine causes DNA damage in several types of human cells in vitro ..."

From the 3 sources under Adverse Effects/Genotoxicity:

- Introduction mentions "freshly isolated single cells of human nasal epithelia and a permanent human bronchial cell line": https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378427411015578

- Title mentions in vitro: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24698733/

- Abstract mentions in vitro: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23200805/ Nathan Franke (talk) 05:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)