Comment by girvo
5 days ago
> It turns out, actually, nicotine is addictive, and is bad for you even if you don't smoke it, as you probably already obviously knew.
This is not the point, but I’m very confused by the link that is linked as evidence on that line? It doesn’t match the sentence it’s attached to
Link in question: https://psychotechnology.substack.com/p/a-love-song-to-nicot...
Yeah. It's titled "a love song to nicotine" and 80+% of it is about the benefits of nicotine with a claim that "sublingual nicotine’s addictive potential feels low", but TFA links to the tacked-on twitter screenshots at the end. Not the point, but it does make one wonder. Though, to be fair, I only realised that the main body of the article existed when I accidentally scrolled back up "too far". Perhaps the author of TFA received the exact same link and made the same mistake as I initially did.
Dataset of one, but I am struggling to quit sublingual nicotine after using it to quit vaping, which I used to quit smoking. Nicotine in any form is intensely moreish in my view.
It’s not a dataset of one (you’re not alone!), there is a huge corpus of data and nicotine is one of the most addicting substances known to humans. I cringe reading anyone saying “nicotine is great”—because I’ve been there too and it’s literally one of the most devilish things ever.
5 replies →
It is pretty funny that the premise of the article is "silly rationalist bloggers, with their long arguments, links to studies, evidence, debate" and then the "alternative" to that being presented is "here's a link to 4 tweets"
My point is that people, lacking common sense, got themselves addicted to nicotine after reading this blog post. I'm not trying to refute the science here, which would be both far longer of an endeavor and not what my blog post is about.
This means you missed the entire point of the article. The author assumes that you already know that nicotine is bad.