• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Using nicotine liquid sublingually?

nicotine sublingual sublingually

  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 Bukujutsu

  • Guest
  • 92 posts
  • 10
  • Location:United States

Posted 16 May 2013 - 03:13 AM


www.gwern.net/Nicotine

Does anyone know what sublingual bioavailability of nicotine is? Since I'm only interested in using it for cognitive enhancement, it would be great not to have to buy an ecig.

Nicotine liquid is too concentrated, so it would have to be diluted. Just add water and shake thoroughly? This could kill you, so to be clear, I wouldn't do anything until being 100% certain. Then a blunt needle 1ml syringe to apply.

Posted Image

How to test nicotine levels:
http://www.e-cigaret...aps-method.html

What do you think the optimal ml per dose would be for sublingual absorption? No lower than necessary, since it increases the chance of overdose.

Edited by Bukujutsu, 16 May 2013 - 03:14 AM.


#2 Luminosity

  • Guest
  • 2,000 posts
  • 646
  • Location:Gaia

Posted 16 May 2013 - 06:29 AM

Don't take nicotine for "cognitive enhancement." Don't take it for this purpose by any means of administration. That is just a bad idea and not healthy. Don't play with fire.

I'm not familiar with people taking nicotine this way but I believe that things taken sublingually go right into your bloodstream all at once and that could cause a problem. Nicotine is potentially neurotoxic in overdose and could be very unpleasant.
  • Ill informed x 1
  • Good Point x 1
  • Disagree x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for BRAIN HEALTH to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 nightlight

  • Guest
  • 374 posts
  • 36
  • Location:Lexington MA

Posted 16 May 2013 - 06:42 AM

Don't take nicotine for "cognitive enhancement." Don't take it for this purpose by any means of administration. That is just a bad idea and not healthy.


Agree, nicotine is overly one-dimensional. It's much better to get it the way people have been doing it for eight thousand years, via tobacco smoke. In this full natural complex form, for any potentially negative effects of nicotine, there is a compensating mechanism in tobacco smoke working the other way e.g. vasoconstricting effects of nicotine are compensated by vasodilating effects of low dose nitric oxide and carbon monoxide, cholinergic effects of nicotine (which can be mood lowering) are compensated by the dopaminergic efffects of MAO B inhibitors in tobacco smoke, etc. Similarly, beneficial effects of nicotine are amplified, especially the anti-inflammatory effects e.g. see earlier discussion on rheumatoid arthritis.
  • dislike x 1
  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1
  • Good Point x 1

#4 Luminosity

  • Guest
  • 2,000 posts
  • 646
  • Location:Gaia

Posted 16 May 2013 - 06:48 AM

While the traditional means of taking tobacco might avoid nicotine overdoses, it does KILL YOU.

So don't do that.

Edited by Luminosity, 16 May 2013 - 06:49 AM.

  • Good Point x 1

#5 Bukujutsu

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 92 posts
  • 10
  • Location:United States

Posted 16 May 2013 - 07:00 AM

According to Gwern the negative health effects, including vasoconstriction, don't seem very significant or well supported, at least at low non-smoker doses. You could just take a vasodilater, but I don't know what would work best.

http://www.longecity...soconstriction/

#6 nightlight

  • Guest
  • 374 posts
  • 36
  • Location:Lexington MA

Posted 16 May 2013 - 07:48 AM

While the traditional means of taking tobacco might avoid nicotine overdoses, it does KILL YOU.


Unless he is a lab animal, in which case smoking would extend his lifespan by ~20%, while keeping him thinner and sharper into the old age, as was observed in countless animal experiments for the last six decades despite the great efforts to show the opposite -- the antismoking experiments kept backfiring, smoking animals just kept living longer no matter how they contrived the setup. So what could poor pharma do to protect its profits but produce and peddle junk science against smoking instead. Whatever works.
  • dislike x 2
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1

#7 YOLF

  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 18 May 2013 - 01:13 AM

Yum, mouth cancer!

#8 Luminosity

  • Guest
  • 2,000 posts
  • 646
  • Location:Gaia

Posted 18 May 2013 - 06:12 AM

It's hard to find your way by a nightlight.

#9 YOLF

  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 18 May 2013 - 04:21 PM

That's about all the light one gets from a cigarette... why not give them up for a shiny new LED flashlight?

#10 nightlight

  • Guest
  • 374 posts
  • 36
  • Location:Lexington MA

Posted 18 May 2013 - 06:56 PM

Yum, mouth cancer!


That's HPV caused cancer, like that of cervix which was blamed on tobacco as well. You need to learn to distinguish between randomized and non-randomized correlations. Check R. A. Fisher's writings on the subject. He ought to know since he created the modern day scientific statistical methods and then had misfortune to live long enough to see them being overtaken and corrupted by the parasitic pseudo-$cience to churn truckloads of junk.
  • like x 1

#11 YOLF

  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 18 May 2013 - 07:24 PM

So chew doesn't cause cancer then? Insurance companies don't give you better rates for quitting tobacco because it results in living a longer life? I imagine RA Fisher is the pseudo scientist. While HPV will probably increase cancer risk, putting drops or another substances that are known carcinogens into you mouth will very likely increase your risk of getting cancer in that area. Granted, nicotine replacement is thought to be much less toxic than actually smoking, there aren't any studies that I'm aware of that tell us exactly how much less or even if all. There are some beneficial things in smoke you aren't getting in nic replacement.

Really, I smoked for a while and I never for any reason thought that it wasn't a known cancer causing substance or that it wouldn't shorten my life... The truth is that I had just given up due to other circumstances and wasn't sure that I wanted to live all that long.

Edited by cryonicsculture, 18 May 2013 - 07:26 PM.


#12 Bukujutsu

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 92 posts
  • 10
  • Location:United States

Posted 18 May 2013 - 11:43 PM

Alright guys, let's say I'm willing to accept the health risk of using pure nicotine, not tobacco, does anyone see any problem with using them sublingually or know the bioavailability of using them this way? :'(

#13 brainslugged

  • Guest
  • 305 posts
  • 39
  • Location:Georgia, US
  • NO

Posted 19 May 2013 - 02:36 AM

Bukujutsu, to try to answer your question: Nicotine has very high bioavailability when absorbed through ANY skin, so I would imagine that under the tongue would have a really great bioavailability, similar to vaping or smoking it. Because it is absorbed so well, BE VERY CAREFUL. You can easily overdose on pure nicotine just by spilling it on yourself or something. Make sure that you are measuring the amounts very carefully. Do you have a good knowledge of titration? If not, then maybe you should buy e-cig juice and use that to be a bit safer.

Also, nicotine isn't entirely harmful. The carcinogenic effects of it are VERY low compared to consumption of any other kind of "full" tobacco. With things like dip or cigarettes, the main carcinogens come from additives or combustion products. It does have some cancer-promoting effects, but there appears to be a very small risk. There even appear to be very useful applications of nicotine in mental illness.

The largest risk you run by subscribing to any theory of nicotine is the risk created by study manipulation. Tobacco companies are very powerful and have a large influence in scientific studies. They also own the methods of quitting (excluding e-cigs). There is also a very strong group of people opposing cigarette use or hoping to gain tax revenue by demonizing cigarettes. Because of these biases, the evidence is very muddled and always has been on the topic of tobacco. It is hard to tell which studies on tobacco are legitimate.

That being said, I tend to lean toward the theory that nicotine itself is not very harmful (and even that the harm of tobacco is largely over-hyped, but still real enough that you shouldn't take up smoking).

Edited by brainslug, 19 May 2013 - 02:38 AM.

  • like x 1

#14 nightlight

  • Guest
  • 374 posts
  • 36
  • Location:Lexington MA

Posted 19 May 2013 - 11:51 AM

Tobacco companies are very powerful and have a large influence in scientific studies. They also own the methods of quitting (excluding e-cigs).


Shouldn't have that been pharmaceutical comanies? Namely, tobacco companies have absolutely no scientific influence (they had lost any advocacy or scientific defense rights through MSA extortion racket). They also don't "own the methods of quitting."

#15 brainslugged

  • Guest
  • 305 posts
  • 39
  • Location:Georgia, US
  • NO

Posted 19 May 2013 - 04:50 PM

Tobacco companies are very powerful and have a large influence in scientific studies. They also own the methods of quitting (excluding e-cigs).


Shouldn't have that been pharmaceutical comanies? Namely, tobacco companies have absolutely no scientific influence (they had lost any advocacy or scientific defense rights through MSA extortion racket). They also don't "own the methods of quitting."

Yeah, maybe I should have fact-checked the tobacco companies owning the methods of quitting.

Are you sure they have no influence in scientific studies? Either way, studies on tobacco/nicotine are horribly manipulated. Whether it is pharm companies or tobacco companies, studies are not very reliable, and we don't know if the truth is that nicotine really is so harmless or if the risk of tobacco is over-hyped, at least as far as I can tell.

I don't think it is really fair to defend cigarettes, though. The majority of studies DO point to cigarettes being harmful. It is risky to go through and pick out the "real" ones in such a sea of unreliable ones. Maybe it turns out that cigarettes aren't really that bad for you or that, as you claim, they are good, but the data that we have doesn't support that at the moment. The safest bet is probably to just not get involved in tobacco at the moment, as there are many other ways to extend life that is probably a little safer IMHO.

If you want to get the purported benefits of smoking, why not vape nicotine and take a MAOI? Doesn't that take care of the most well-known benefit associated with smoking while also avoiding the carcinogens?

#16 axonopathy

  • Guest Social Engineering Spammer
  • 69 posts
  • 7
  • Location:Philadelphia, PA
  • NO

Posted 28 April 2015 - 03:49 AM

Sorry to revive an old thread, but would it work to dilute a product like this http://www.amazon.co...duct/B00WRIQUL6and use the dropper to put nicotine under the tongue? 

 

How much would one want to dilute such a solution for it to be safe and not chemically burn the tongue? 



#17 Keizo

  • Guest
  • 389 posts
  • 27
  • Location:Sweden
  • NO

Posted 28 April 2015 - 10:03 AM

put it on your arm instead, don't dilute


Edited by Keizo, 28 April 2015 - 10:03 AM.


#18 axonopathy

  • Guest Social Engineering Spammer
  • 69 posts
  • 7
  • Location:Philadelphia, PA
  • NO

Posted 28 April 2015 - 09:12 PM

put it on your arm instead, don't dilute

 

I never even thought of that. I guess it must be absorbed well transdermally or they wouldn't have made a nicotine patch. 



#19 Luxflux

  • Guest
  • 26 posts
  • 5
  • Location:NC

Posted 29 April 2015 - 02:44 AM

Part of (if not all of) the benefits experienced from nicotine are contingent upon the delivery system - In other words, a patch doesn't feel like a cigarette. You need quick jolts of nicotine, not a steady stream from a patch. I think if you aren't willing to smoke or pick up an e-cig, you won't get much out of a "poor man's" patch.



#20 VerdeGo

  • Guest
  • 205 posts
  • 6
  • Location:FL

Posted 29 April 2015 - 02:54 AM

I love vaping my e-cig after many years of smoking Marlborough Reds. I do believe what they say about it being a cognition enhancer, though it seems to be a rather simple and temporary one. I am consuming more nicotine on a more regular basis than I did with cigarettes, but I've seen no negative effects since I started vaping over two years ago. I do believe there's no link with cancer and nicotine by itself, but I could be wrong. 

 

I certainly wouldn't inject it though! I once spilled some liquid on my groin when trying to refill my tank while driving, just before going on a long trip (luckily my friend was driving). By the time we got to the rental car place, I was experiencing extreme anxiety and stimulation, and my heart was racing through my chest. I think nicotine is meant to be inhaled, not injected. If you fuck it up, you're dead, or you'll wish you'll be dead from the effects you experience. 



#21 Keizo

  • Guest
  • 389 posts
  • 27
  • Location:Sweden
  • NO

Posted 29 April 2015 - 06:24 AM

 

put it on your arm instead, don't dilute

 

I never even thought of that. I guess it must be absorbed well transdermally or they wouldn't have made a nicotine patch. 

 

I have an old bottle of 26mg/ml nicotine in glycerin (used for e-cigarettes otherwise, flavorless) I have put on my skin at various times. It does not take much to produce an effect.



#22 VerdeGo

  • Guest
  • 205 posts
  • 6
  • Location:FL

Posted 30 April 2015 - 03:49 AM

Out of curiosity, did you get effects from it being on your fingertips? I've found the skin to be too coarse to absorb much of anything, as I'm always getting it onto the tips of my fingers when refilling a tank. A little off topic, but a long time ago I rubbed liquid LSD on my fingertips, and I got absolutely no effect. But the groin area/thighs, well that's a different story (for nicotine at least).



#23 Keizo

  • Guest
  • 389 posts
  • 27
  • Location:Sweden
  • NO

Posted 30 April 2015 - 11:44 AM

Out of curiosity, did you get effects from it being on your fingertips? I've found the skin to be too coarse to absorb much of anything, as I'm always getting it onto the tips of my fingers when refilling a tank. A little off topic, but a long time ago I rubbed liquid LSD on my fingertips, and I got absolutely no effect. But the groin area/thighs, well that's a different story (for nicotine at least).

I don't really know, but I guess so. I try to wash that away, and instead leave it on my forearm.

 

I am fairly certain that it is safe to put this liquid (26mg/ml in glycerin) on say tea-leaves and use it as oral "tobacco" (I did that yesterday). But I think it might be more damaging to ones health this way, I don't think restricting blood flow in ones mouth is a good thing. I probably used 1/20th of a milliliter or less on these tea leaves. (1mg nicotine or something like that)


Edited by Keizo, 30 April 2015 - 11:48 AM.


sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for BRAIN HEALTH to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#24 VerdeGo

  • Guest
  • 205 posts
  • 6
  • Location:FL

Posted 01 May 2015 - 04:18 AM

Interesting concept. I'll keep that in mind the next time my e-cig battery dies.  ;)







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: nicotine, sublingual, sublingually

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users