Comment by maxander
12 years ago
Its possible I've missed something? I don't have time to read all the papers you cite, but from titles/abstracts they all appear to be talking about the effects of MAOIs. If there are separate substances in play I've somehow managed to read your article and completely miss any mention of them.
> Its possible I've missed something? I don't have time to read all the papers you cite, but from titles/abstracts they all appear to be talking about the effects of MAOIs.
Well, yes, what exactly else would you expect papers to be about when someone claims that nicotine+MAOIs is different from just nicotine...? Presumably the papers are going to have titles like "Monoamine Oxidase Inhibition Dramatically Increases the Motivation to Self-Administer Nicotine in Rats".
Perhaps I wasn't very clear; in your article, you contrast the apparent non-addictiveness of pure nicotine with, to quote directly, "the addictiveness coming from MAOIs & other compounds present in tobacco." And it is precisely the latter part of the phrase "MAOIs & other compounds" that I was asking about when I said "other compounds."
The implication seemed to be that there were other things beyond MAOIs in tobacco that were (or helped nicotine to be) addictive; is that not the case?
> The implication seemed to be that there were other things beyond MAOIs in tobacco that were (or helped nicotine to be) addictive; is that not the case?
Well, I don't know that it's not the case. There's a lot of stuff in tobacco, it wouldn't surprise me if there were other chemicals besides MAOIs with relevant psychoactive effects. But from the snippet you quote, I see why you might be reading that as a stronger claim than I intended. I'll amend that to '& possibly other compounds' so it's clearer.