36 



rative arrangement. The people in Richmond are good scientists, 

 and it was a good exchange of ideas. 



Mr. Greenwood. Now, if I understand your testimony, the rea- 

 son that we've heard very different kinds of answers to different 

 questions directed by different members of the panel is that when 

 Chairman Waxman or Mr. Synar have asked you questions about 

 the addictive quality or the reinforcing qualities of nicotine, you 

 have really relied on the information that has been brought for- 

 ward by other researchers in the past 10 years. 



When you've been asked to give information based your own 

 study of 10 years ago, you had different information. So, on the one 

 hand, you said, yes, my study didn't demonstrate that nicotine was 

 addictive or reinforcing, however, we now know that it's the case. 

 Does that correctly summarize what you said? 



Mr. DeNoble. Let me see if I can clarify it. The work that was 

 done in 1981, 1982, and 1983, on nicotine self-administration clear- 

 ly shows that nicotine is an intravenously driven reinforcer. That 

 is a characteristic of a drug of abuse. 



When you talk about addiction, you are talking about a human 

 condition. Rats — we can't predict that nicotine is addictive in hu- 

 mans based upon that single observation in rats. So my study 

 stands, our study stands, as this is a characteristic of the drug, it's 

 definitely a substance that could have an abuse liability. That ends 

 right there. 



From 1984 on, there have been numerous studies demonstrating 

 in humans, as well as in monkeys, that nicotine has qualities that 

 the committee calls addicting. 



Mr. Greenwood. Now, we talked about other substances 

 throughout these hearings, everything from saccharine and caffeine 

 to alcohol and amphetamines to heroin. Is it possible to place the 

 qualities of nicotine on some sort of a spectrum? Is it more like caf- 

 feine or is it more like heroin, in terms of its effect on either mice 

 or humans? 



Mr. DeNoble. Well, in humans I think the data indicates that 

 it's more like cocaine and amphetamine. Those are the studies that 

 have been done back in the late 1980's. In the animal, you have 

 to do direct comparisons, and very few of those studies have been 

 done. In the rat, nicotine is probably like alcohol, if you want to 

 talk about weak reinforcing effects. But in the human, I think the 

 data indicates it's more like a stimulant. 



Mr. Greenwood. Caffeine is a stimulant, right? 



Mr. DeNoble. Caffeine, I think, is classified as a weak stimu- 

 lant, yes. 



Mr. Greenwood. A weak stimulant. So you are saying it's more 

 like cocaine than it is like caffeine? 



Mr. DeNoble. That would be the data, that is the research, yes. 



Mr. Greenwood. OK. There are lots of pleasurable responses 

 that you can get both rats and humans to work for, to push pedals 

 for, or whatever else they do. What is the difference between that 

 and addictive behavior? 



Mr. DeNoble. Not much. The difference is that the animal is in 

 a controlled experimental procedure, and you are controlling vari- 

 ables. When a human self-administers a drug, it's the same situa- 

 tion. The human has to go buy it, he has to work to get it. I mean, 



