The human body breaks nicotine down quite quickly. A few hours suffices to rid the body of nicotine. I do not know the detail, although I have read about it, but it appears that the human body converts nicotine into cotinine, which is dispensed with via the urine. Thus, provided that you do the test quite soon after the intake of nicotine, you can judge the level of nicotine which has passed through the body from the amount of cotinine in the urine. Scientifically, such tests could be conducted, and they would show the level of nicotine absorption – provided that you knew with some precision, how long ago the nicotine was absorbed, and how long ago the subject had his/her last pee.
But what was the point? Why did researchers go to all the trouble to discover cotinine? And what use was their results? What was the point? As far as I can see, the variables are such that cotinine levels, at any specific time, are meaningless. Certain common vegetables that we eat contain nicotine. Everyone who eats those vegetables absorbs some nicotine. It does not seem to drive them to take up smoking, but it does affect cotinine levels in the blood/urine.
So, having spent enormous sums of money and time to discover cotinine (for what reason?) and having tested X people (for what reason?) and having discovered that smokers create more cotinine temporarily that non-smokers, which is to be expected, what has been gained?
The fact is that NOTHING AT ALL HAS BEEN GAINED. It does not matter one jot nor one tit. All the money and effort discovering cotinine has been wasted. It would not be so bad if the cotinine produced by smokers could be harvested and used to cure lung cancer, or any other disease, but the researchers seem not to have researched such wonderful ideas.
If there is no medical benefit about knowing levels of cotinine, or harvesting it, what is the point of the research?
The only sensible reason is that there may come a day when tobacco is banned under penalty of death. In such a situation, any level of cotinine, provided that the person had not just eaten loads of eggplants etc, above a certain level, which would be required to be proven beyond doubt, would be presumed to be a smoker and subject to execution either by the guillotine or by the electric chair – preferably in a public arena, such as a children’s park. Or they could be ducked in the local duck-pond. Celebs seem to be particularly appropriate targets for a ducking. They are regularly ducked in the cesspool of the newspapers. It always seems odd to me how the newspapers report ‘an apology’. Suppose that the celeb in question told the MSM to ‘fuck off’? It is easy to transpose such a reply to ‘an apology’. “Celeb X was upset and expressed a wish to be forgiven”. The clothes model Kate Moss has always impressed me. She does not give an shit and says nothing to the press. Why don’t football players do the same thing? Why do they constantly apologise? They are footballers and not ‘role models’. If I was Wayne Rooney, I would do as I wish. I would be immensely rich. But, if I wanted to continue to be a top-class footballer, I would temper my behaviour, in every way, to achieve that. But I would not do so as directed by tobacco control, alcohol control or the MSM.
There are only a few classes of people whose existence depends upon public approbation. There may be others, but politicians spring to mind.
Has anyone thought of the idea that trade unions should change their objectives? That, in addition to wages and salaries, they should protect their members from persecution? The crazy thing is that many trade unions took on board the smoking bans as a means to bash employers. How short-sighted can you get?
Maybe the discovery of cotinine, a ‘metabolite’ of nicotine, is a wonderful thing. But, for the life of me, I cannot see any use for it.