upvote
Indeed, it seems to me that nicotine may indeed have beneficial effects in some contexts.

It is also readily apparent to me that nicotine is bad for us, generally and broadly.

The combination leaves wiggle room for nicotine to be a net-good lever on certain mechanisms. I do think it's best to avoid it; It's a challenging double-edged sword.

The molecular biology of how it's maybe-good and maybe-bad is probably the most useful aspect of it. It's a strange sort of bronchodilator and has weird and ambiguous antiinflammatory properties. (Which seem to tie in to how it is addictive: Short-term bronchodilation and oddly-shaped short-term antiinflammatory properties turn into bronchoconstriction and proinflammatory effects as time passes from taking nicotine, which feels like it would be rather inductive to generating a craving for more nicotine.)

Re. Parkinson's: Wild guess, addled brain hunching on nebulous perspectives, but I do think that nicotine's protective effects against Parkinson's are indeed related to the bronchodilation and antiinflammatory aspects, and more specifically it seems to me that Parkinson's has pulmonary basis. I think we're nuking our lungs in many subtle ways that in some of us cause the dam of cell death in the substantia nigra to break. How might we be nuking our lungs? Say… Air pollution, incl. microplastics and plasticizers, various disruptors of fine pulmonary epithelium and metabolic function and neuroendocrine autonomic control. And I'd think that once we start to lose fine autonomic control by way of loss of dopamine cells in the substantia nigra, we'd be poised to enter a vicious cycle of further loss of pulmonary foundations.

but idk, just sayin lol

reply
I suspect we'll find that some smokers (in addition to being addicted) were self-medicating.
reply
Not sure about earlier, but during WWI cigarettes were smoked at incredible scale, to help deal with the stresses and horrors of war. Ensuring an ample supply to front-line troops was major gov't priority.

And I certainly have known cigarette smokers who explained "yes, I know they cause cancer and other bad stuff - but they also help with other serious (physical and mental) problems that I have, and I'm choosing quality of life over quantity".

reply
Funnily enough, the main body of the post the author links to is about the exact opposite
reply
It is? Am I getting a different link to you, or is my reading comprehension just terrible at 9.30pm or something.

https://psychotechnology.substack.com/p/a-love-song-to-nicot...

It says the exact opposite to me?

reply
This is linking to the appendix of a generally positive post (it's called "A Love Song to Nicotine") where the author caveats that some people report that they have indeed encountered addiction issues.

Weird that this is how OP chose to support their argument.

reply
And “bad for you” is left completely unexamined. It feels very dishonest to me, and it’s a shame because I was hoping to learn something new.
reply