Pipe Smoking

Abstract

Pipe smoking is a form of smoking: tobacco burned in a bowl-and-stem pipe, its smoke drawn into the mouth and, in most smokers, held there rather than inhaled. Because pipe smoke is alkaline, its nicotine crosses the lining of the mouth and arrives in the brain as a slow swell rather than the sharp arterial spike a cigarette delivers. Cognitive pharmacology's rate hypothesis holds that the speed of that rise, not the dose, is what the reward system reads as reinforcing, so the same peak is less addictive when it arrives slowly. Against this weaker pharmacological pull the pipe sets an unusually elaborate ritual whose rich multi-sensory cues condition craving in their own right. Three interactive demonstrations trace nicotine delivery kinetics, the growth of cue-elicited craving across the ritual, and the delay discounting that shapes a cessation attempt.

Keywords: nicotine, delivery kinetics, addiction, craving, cue reactivity

Ask a pipe smoker why they keep at it and the answer is rarely the nicotine. It is the packing of the bowl, the first careful light and the tamp, the slow draw, the smell of the tobacco, the half-hour of deliberate quiet the pipe enforces. The account is cognitively revealing. A cigarette is a near-pure nicotine delivery device whose grip is pharmacological; a pipe is a drug wrapped in a ritual so elaborate that the ritual becomes much of the point. Cognitive psychology can take both halves of that description seriously: the pharmacology of a slow, buccal nicotine dose, and the conditioning power of a long, distinctive chain of cues.

Pipe smoking is also the historically older and, in the developed world, the declining form of tobacco use, which makes it a useful comparison case rather than a public-health emergency on the scale of cigarettes (West, 2017). Its epidemiology carries one hard lesson the cognitive account predicts: a smoker who switches from cigarettes to a pipe but keeps inhaling out of habit gains far less than the gentler delivery would suggest, because the learned act of deep inhalation travels with them (Wald & Watt, 1997). This article treats pipe smoking as cognitive psychology does—as a case study in how the rate of a drug's delivery, and the cues that surround it, together build a habit.

What Pipe Smoking Is

Pipe smoking is the burning of loose tobacco in the bowl of a pipe and the drawing of its smoke through the stem into the mouth. The defining feature, cognitively and pharmacologically, is what happens next: the classic pipe smoker does not inhale. The smoke is tasted and held in the oral cavity, then released. This matters because of a quiet fact of chemistry—pipe (and cigar) tobacco smoke is alkaline, with a pH high enough that a substantial fraction of its nicotine is un-ionised and therefore able to cross the mucous membranes of the mouth directly into the bloodstream (Benowitz et al., 2009). The cigarette, by contrast, burns an acidic smoke whose nicotine is poorly absorbed in the mouth and must reach the enormous surface area of the lungs to be taken up quickly.

That difference sets the whole tempo of the drug. Buccal absorption is slow and incomplete; pulmonary absorption is fast and efficient, delivering an arterial bolus to the brain within seconds of a puff. Nicotine itself is the same molecule in both cases—an agonist at nicotinic acetylcholine receptors that triggers dopamine release in the mesolimbic reward pathway (Wittenberg et al., 2020). What changes is the shape of its arrival, and as the sections below develop, that shape is much of what determines how strongly the behavior is reinforced (Benowitz, 2010; Dani & Balfour, 2011).

Types of Pipe Smoking

In the Medical Subject Headings vocabulary, Pipe Smoking (D000073868) is filed directly under Smoking (D012907), and MeSH records one narrower descriptor beneath it, distinguished by the apparatus through which the smoke is drawn. MeSH is an indexing classification built for retrieving the biomedical literature, not a theory of how the behavior is organised cognitively; its hierarchy reflects historical indexing practice rather than any mechanistic distinction, and the delivery route that matters for addiction cuts across these categories rather than following them.

That single child, Water Pipe Smoking, does not yet have its own article on this site and so is listed but not linked. It is worth reading as the exception that tests the rule: the water pipe is a pipe by apparatus, but its users generally inhale the cooled smoke in long sessions, so it recovers much of the fast pulmonary delivery—and the attendant risk—that the classic held-in-the-mouth pipe avoids. The grouping is a reminder that the cognitively decisive variable is the route and rate of delivery, not the shape of the device (Benowitz, 2010).

Pipe Smoking and Cognition

Cognitive psychology studies pipe smoking through the same systems nicotine recruits in any tobacco habit—reward learning, attention, and intertemporal choice—but the pipe throws two of them into unusually sharp relief. The first is the pharmacology of rate: because the pipe delivers nicotine slowly, it is a natural experiment in how delivery speed governs reinforcement. The second is the power of cues: because the pipe ritual is so elaborate and distinctive, it is a natural experiment in how a rich conditioned sequence sustains a habit even when the drug reward per dose is modest (Rose, 2006; Dani & Balfour, 2011).

The rate hypothesis: delivery speed and reinforcement

The central cognitive-pharmacological idea in pipe smoking is the rate hypothesis: the reinforcing power of a dose of nicotine depends on how quickly it reaches the brain, not merely on how much arrives. A drug that spikes sharply produces a tight, salient pairing between the act and the dopaminergic reward signal; a drug that rises slowly smears that signal across minutes and weakens the association (Russell, 1990; Benowitz, 2009). This is why route matters so much across tobacco products: the inhaled cigarette is among the most addictive forms of nicotine precisely because the lung delivers the steepest possible rise, while nicotine taken slowly—through the oral mucosa of a pipe smoker, or the gum of a patient on replacement therapy—is markedly less reinforcing at the same eventual dose (Benowitz, 2010).

For pipe smoking the consequence is direct. Alkaline pipe smoke held in the mouth delivers nicotine on a slow buccal time-course, so each dose carries a shallow rise rather than a spike. The pharmacology predicts a weaker grip, and the epidemiology broadly agrees: exclusive pipe smokers, who neither inhale nor supplement with cigarettes, show lower dependence and different disease patterns than cigarette smokers, though emphatically not an absence of harm (Henley et al., 2004). Demo 1 makes the kinetics adjustable, and the Worked Example below turns the rise curve into numbers.

Ritual as a cue complex

If the pharmacology is gentler, why is the pipe habit so durable? The cognitive answer is that nicotine addiction has always been more than nicotine. The non-nicotine factors of smoking—the sensory, motor, and contextual cues that accompany every dose—acquire motivational force of their own through conditioning, and can sustain the behavior substantially on their own (Rose, 2006). The pipe is the extreme case. Its ritual is long and richly multi-sensory: selecting and packing the tobacco, the first light and the tamp, the relight, the smell and taste, the characteristic hand-to-mouth cadence, the social and reflective context the pipe is smoked in. Each of these is a cue, and each has been paired, over years, with whatever reward the nicotine supplies.

Under the incentive-sensitization theory, cues paired repeatedly with a drug acquire incentive salience—they come to capture attention and elicit craving, a cue-driven wanting that is dissociable from, and can grow and persist independently of, the liking or pleasure the drug delivers (Berridge & Robinson, 2016; Dani & Balfour, 2011). The unusually elaborate pipe ritual therefore builds an unusually rich scaffold of craving-eliciting cues, which helps explain how a comparatively gentle pharmacological reward supports a tenacious habit. Demo 2 grows cue-elicited craving across repeated ritual pairings and lets the richness of the ritual be varied.

Intertemporal choice and quitting

When a pipe smoker considers quitting, the decision is an exercise in intertemporal choice: a near-certain immediate loss (the ritual, the relief, the pleasure of the next bowl) set against a delayed, probabilistic gain (health years hence). Like other smokers, tobacco users tend to discount delayed rewards steeply, so the distant health benefit is devalued against the immediate cost of forgoing the pipe. Structured models of behavior change describe quitting as movement through stages—precontemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, maintenance—each with its own cognitive balance of perceived costs and benefits (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1983).

Cessation support acts on both sides of that ledger. Pharmacotherapies—nicotine replacement, bupropion, varenicline—raise the odds of success by blunting withdrawal and, in effect, supplying a slow, non-spiking nicotine source that is far less reinforcing than the smoked drug (Cahill et al., 2013). Because craving and lapse are driven by momentary cues and states rather than by stable traits, they are best captured as they happen: ecological momentary assessment, sampling craving and context in real time in the smoker's own environment, has reshaped how relapse is studied and understood (Shiffman et al., 2008). Newer nicotine products add a further option—electronic cigarettes, which in a randomised trial outperformed nicotine-replacement therapy for cessation, deliver nicotine on yet another time-course and raise their own conditioning questions (Hajek et al., 2019). Demo 3 makes the discounting that underlies the quit decision adjustable.

Nicotine, cognition, and withdrawal

The folk image of the contemplative pipe smoker, thinking better for the pipe, has a grain of pharmacological truth and a large measure of illusion. Acute nicotine does produce small, genuine improvements in sustained attention and response speed in meta-analysis (Heishman et al., 2010). But in a dependent user much of the felt benefit is the relief of withdrawal rather than enhancement above a non-user's baseline: abstinence degrades attention and working memory, and the next dose merely restores them. The pipe's slow delivery changes the tempo of this cycle—withdrawal and relief are smeared out rather than sharply punctuated as in cigarette smoking—but does not abolish it. The contemplative calm is real as an experience; as a cognitive gain over baseline it is largely the quieting of a deficit the nicotine itself helps maintain (Benowitz, 2010).

Worked Example

The rate hypothesis can be made quantitative with a simple model of how brain nicotine rises after a single dose. Treat the brain as a one-compartment system filling toward a peak C_max with a delivery time constant τ:

C(t) = C_max (1 − e^−t/τ)

A small τ means fast delivery (the inhaled cigarette, filling through the lungs); a large τ means slow delivery (the pipe's buccal absorption). The quantity the rate hypothesis says the reward system reads is the initial rate of rise, the slope at the very start:

dC/dt at t = 0 is C_max / τ

Take the same peak for both, C_max = 20 ng/mL, and give the cigarette τ = 0.5 min and the pipe τ = 5 min. The initial rates are then:

- Cigarette: 20 / 0.5 = 40 ng/mL per minute - Pipe: 20 / 5 = 4 ng/mL per minute

A tenfold difference in the steepness of the leading edge, from the same eventual dose. The time to reach a fraction f of the peak is t = −τ ln(1 − f):

half-peak (f = 0.5): t = τ ln 2 · 90% of peak (f = 0.9): t = τ ln 10

- Cigarette reaches half its peak in 0.5 × 0.693 = 0.35 min (about 21 seconds) and 90% in 0.5 × 2.303 = 1.15 min - Pipe reaches half its peak in 5 × 0.693 = 3.47 min and 90% in 5 × 2.303 = 11.5 min

The cigarette slams its dose home in a sharp spike; the pipe lets the same dose swell in over minutes. It is that steep leading edge—not the peak, which is identical here—that the mesolimbic dopamine system reads as a powerful reinforcer, which is the pharmacological core of why fast delivery addicts more fiercely than slow (Russell, 1990; Benowitz, 2009). Demo 1 varies τ and C_max and reads off both the initial rate and the time-to-peak.

Discussion

Read cognitively, pipe smoking is a study in the two forces that build any drug habit pulling in opposite directions. The pharmacology is unusually gentle: alkaline smoke, buccal absorption, a slow rise that the rate hypothesis says is weakly reinforcing, and an epidemiology of lower dependence than cigarettes among those who genuinely do not inhale (Henley et al., 2004; Benowitz, 2010). The conditioning is unusually strong: a long, distinctive, multi-sensory ritual that supplies an exceptionally rich scaffold of craving-eliciting cues (Rose, 2006). The habit's tenacity lives in the tension between the two, and the balance differs from the cigarette's, where fierce pharmacology does most of the work and the ritual is minimal.

That framing carries a public-health warning the cognitive account makes legible. The gentleness is conditional on not inhaling, and inhalation is a learned motor habit that does not respect the switch of products. A cigarette smoker who moves to a pipe but keeps drawing the smoke into the lungs carries the fast pulmonary route—and much of its risk—along with them, which is exactly what the mortality data on switching show (Wald & Watt, 1997). The lesson generalises to every putatively safer nicotine product: the delivery route and the conditioned behavior, not the marketing category, determine the cognitive and physical outcome.

Current Directions

Two fronts are active and bear directly on the pipe. The first is the extension of the rate hypothesis across the growing landscape of nicotine products. Electronic cigarettes, heated-tobacco devices, pouches, and gums each deliver nicotine on a distinct time-course, and the cognitive question—how steeply does the brain level rise, and therefore how reinforcing and how conditioning-prone is the product—now has direct regulatory stakes, sharpened by trial evidence that e-cigarettes can outperform traditional replacement therapy for cessation (Hajek et al., 2019; Cahill et al., 2013). The second is methodological: ecological momentary assessment and related real-time sampling methods are maturing into the standard way to capture craving, cue exposure, and lapse as they unfold in daily life, which is where the cue-driven account of a ritualised habit like pipe smoking can actually be tested rather than inferred from the laboratory (Shiffman et al., 2008). Underlying both is a deepening receptor-level account of how nicotine acts on specific nicotinic acetylcholine receptor subtypes to produce the learned changes that sustain any tobacco habit (Wittenberg et al., 2020).

Common Misconceptions

Pipe smoking is harmless because the smoke is not inhaled.

Not inhaling lowers but does not remove risk: exclusive pipe smokers still show elevated mortality from cancers of the mouth, throat, and other sites, and the protection from not inhaling vanishes the moment a former cigarette smoker keeps inhaling out of habit (Henley et al., 2004; Wald & Watt, 1997).

Switching from cigarettes to a pipe is a safe way to cut down.

Switchers who retain the learned act of deep inhalation carry the fast pulmonary delivery route with them, and their mortality reflects it—far closer to continued cigarette smoking than the gentler pipe pharmacology would imply (Wald & Watt, 1997).

The pipe is relaxing, so it must be improving concentration.

Acute nicotine gives small genuine attention gains, but in a dependent smoker most of the felt benefit is relief of the attention and memory deficits that abstinence itself produces—a repair of a drug-created deficit, not enhancement above baseline (Heishman et al., 2010).

If the nicotine hit is gentle, the habit must be easy to drop.

Weaker pharmacological reinforcement does not mean a weak habit: the pipe's elaborate ritual conditions an exceptionally rich set of craving-eliciting cues, which can sustain the behavior largely on their own (Rose, 2006; Dani & Balfour, 2011).

Glossary

Addiction.

A disorder of compulsive drug seeking and use maintained by learned changes in reward, attention, and motivation; in tobacco it is driven by nicotine and the cues paired with it.

Alkaline smoke.

Smoke with a pH high enough that much of its nicotine is un-ionised and can be absorbed across the lining of the mouth; characteristic of pipe and cigar tobacco, and the reason pipe smokers need not inhale to take up nicotine.

Buccal absorption.

Uptake of a drug through the mucous membranes of the mouth; slower and less complete than pulmonary absorption, producing a gradual rather than a spiking rise in brain nicotine.

Craving.

An intense, often cue-triggered desire to smoke; in incentive-sensitization theory it is the subjective face of sensitized wanting and can be provoked by the ritual cues of pipe smoking.

Cue reactivity.

The physiological, subjective, and neural responses elicited by stimuli associated with smoking; the elaborate pipe ritual supplies an unusually rich set of such cues.

Delay discounting.

The decline in the subjective value of a reward as its delivery is postponed; steep discounting devalues the delayed health benefits of quitting against the immediate cost of forgoing the pipe.

Delivery kinetics.

The time-course over which a drug reaches the brain after a dose; for nicotine, set chiefly by the route of absorption and captured here by the time constant τ.

Incentive salience.

The motivational property—wanting—that a reward and its cues acquire through conditioning, making them attractive and able to command attention and action independently of pleasure.

Nicotine.

The principal addictive compound in tobacco, an agonist at nicotinic acetylcholine receptors that triggers mesolimbic dopamine release; the same molecule in pipe and cigarette, differing only in how fast it is delivered.

Pulmonary absorption.

Uptake of a drug across the large surface of the lungs; fast and efficient, delivering an arterial bolus of nicotine to the brain within seconds, as in inhaled cigarette smoking.

Rate hypothesis.

The proposal that the reinforcing power of a drug dose scales with how quickly it reaches the brain, not just with the peak concentration; it explains why slow buccal nicotine is less addictive than a fast pulmonary spike of the same size.

Reinforcement.

The strengthening of a behavior by its consequences; smoking is reinforced by nicotine's reward and, as dependence forms, by relief of withdrawal.

Ritual (smoking ritual).

The sequence of sensory and motor acts surrounding a dose—packing, lighting, tamping, drawing; in pipe smoking it is unusually elaborate and becomes a conditioned cue complex in its own right.

Withdrawal.

The aversive physical and cognitive state—degraded attention, working memory, and mood—that follows cessation in a dependent user; its relief powerfully reinforces continued smoking.

Key Researchers

Neal L. Benowitz

(Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco). The foremost authority on the clinical pharmacology of nicotine, whose work on absorption, metabolism, and delivery kinetics underpins the rate-based account of why route determines addictiveness. Faculty · Google Scholar · Wikipedia

John A. Dani

(Department of Neuroscience, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania). A leader in the neuroscience of nicotine, whose work connects the action of nicotine at its receptors to the dopaminergic reward signalling that sustains tobacco use. Faculty

Stephen J. Heishman

(National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH Intramural Research Program). A behavioral pharmacologist whose meta-analytic work established the modest, real—and largely withdrawal-relieving—acute cognitive effects of nicotine and smoking. Faculty

Michael A. H. Russell

(1932–2009) (Addiction Research Unit, Institute of Psychiatry, London). A pioneer of nicotine science who argued that people smoke for nicotine but die from the tar, and whose work on delivery and dependence laid the groundwork for the rate hypothesis. Wikipedia

Saul Shiffman

(Department of Psychology, University of Pittsburgh). A founder of ecological momentary assessment, who brought the real-time measurement of craving, cue exposure, and lapse into the smoker's own daily environment. Faculty · Google Scholar

Robert West

(Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London). A leading figure in the science of tobacco use and cessation, and a longtime editor of the field, whose syntheses frame the health impact, prevalence, and treatment of smoking. Faculty · Google Scholar · Wikipedia

Frequently Asked Questions

Is pipe smoking less addictive than cigarette smoking?

Dose-for-dose, generally yes, provided the smoker does not inhale. Pipe tobacco smoke is alkaline, so its nicotine is absorbed slowly across the lining of the mouth rather than delivered as a fast arterial spike through the lungs. Under the rate hypothesis, that slow rise is less reinforcing than a cigarette's sharp one, which tends to produce lower dependence. But the elaborate pipe ritual conditions strong craving cues of its own, so the habit can still be hard to break.

Why does it matter whether the smoke is inhaled?

Inhaling sends the smoke to the lungs, whose vast surface delivers nicotine to the brain within seconds: the fast, highly reinforcing pulmonary route. Holding the smoke in the mouth restricts uptake to the slower buccal route. The health consequences follow the route: a former cigarette smoker who switches to a pipe but keeps inhaling retains much of the cigarette's delivery pattern and much of its risk.

What is the rate hypothesis?

It is the proposal that the reinforcing power of a drug depends on how fast it reaches the brain, not just on how much arrives. A sharp spike of nicotine produces a tight pairing with the brain's reward signal; a slow rise smears that signal out and weakens the association. It explains why inhaled cigarettes are so addictive and why slow nicotine, whether from a pipe held in the mouth or from nicotine gum, is less so at the same dose.

If the pharmacology is gentle, why is the pipe habit so persistent?

Because nicotine addiction is more than nicotine. The pipe's long, multi-sensory ritual (packing, lighting, tamping, the smell and the cadence) becomes a rich set of conditioned cues that acquire motivational pull of their own. These cues can elicit craving and sustain the behavior even when the drug reward per dose is modest.

Is pipe smoking safe?

No. Not inhaling lowers the risk relative to cigarettes, but exclusive pipe smokers still have elevated mortality, particularly from cancers of the mouth, throat, oesophagus, and larynx, along with other smoking-related diseases. A lower risk than cigarettes is still not the same as no risk.

Does a pipe really aid thinking?

Only marginally, and mostly as an illusion of relief. Acute nicotine produces small genuine gains in attention and reaction speed, but in a dependent smoker most of the felt benefit is the reversal of the attention and memory deficits that abstinence itself causes. The sense of contemplative calm is real as an experience but is largely the quieting of a deficit the nicotine helps maintain.

How does quitting a pipe differ from quitting cigarettes?

The pharmacological withdrawal may be gentler and more smeared out, because the delivery was slower to begin with. But the cue side can be harder: the pipe ritual is so distinctive and elaborate that its cues are powerful triggers for craving. Approaches that work for cigarettes (pharmacotherapy to blunt withdrawal, and real-time attention to the cues and moments that provoke lapse) apply to the pipe as well.

Is a water pipe (hookah) the same as a pipe?

By apparatus it is a kind of pipe, but behaviorally it is closer to cigarette smoking in the way that matters most: water-pipe users generally inhale the cooled smoke in long sessions, recovering much of the fast pulmonary delivery, and the associated risk, that the classic held-in-the-mouth pipe avoids.

References

Benowitz, N. L., Hukkanen, J., & Jacob, P. (2009). Nicotine chemistry, metabolism, kinetics and biomarkers. In J. E. Henningfield, E. D. London, & S. Pogun (Eds.), Nicotine psychopharmacology (Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology, Vol. 192, pp. 29–60). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-69248-5_2

Benowitz, N. L. (2010). Nicotine addiction. New England Journal of Medicine, 362(24), 2295–2303. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra0809890

Berridge, K. C., & Robinson, T. E. (2016). Liking, wanting, and the incentive-sensitization theory of addiction. American Psychologist, 71(8), 670–679. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000059

Cahill, K., Stevens, S., Perera, R., & Lancaster, T. (2013). Pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation: An overview and network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2013(5), CD009329. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009329.pub2

Dani, J. A., & Balfour, D. J. K. (2011). Historical and current perspective on tobacco use and nicotine addiction. Trends in Neurosciences, 34(7), 383–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2011.05.001

Hajek, P., Phillips-Waller, A., Przulj, D., Pesola, F., Myers Smith, K., Bisal, N., Li, J., Parrott, S., Sasieni, P., Dawkins, L., Ross, L., Goniewicz, M., Wu, Q., & McRobbie, H. J. (2019). A randomized trial of e-cigarettes versus nicotine-replacement therapy. New England Journal of Medicine, 380(7), 629–637. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1808779

Heishman, S. J., Kleykamp, B. A., & Singleton, E. G. (2010). Meta-analysis of the acute effects of nicotine and smoking on human performance. Psychopharmacology, 210(4), 453–469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-010-1848-1

Henley, S. J., Thun, M. J., Chao, A., & Calle, E. E. (2004). Association between exclusive pipe smoking and mortality from cancer and other diseases. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 96(11), 853–861. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djh144

Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1983). Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: Toward an integrative model of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51(3), 390–395. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.51.3.390

Rose, J. E. (2006). Nicotine and nonnicotine factors in cigarette addiction. Psychopharmacology, 184(3–4), 274–285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-005-0250-x

Russell, M. A. H. (1990). The nicotine addiction trap: A 40-year sentence for four cigarettes. British Journal of Addiction, 85(2), 293–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.1990.tb03085.x

Shiffman, S., Stone, A. A., & Hufford, M. R. (2008). Ecological momentary assessment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091415

Wald, N. J., & Watt, H. C. (1997). Prospective study of effect of switching from cigarettes to pipes or cigars on mortality from three smoking related diseases. BMJ, 314(7098), 1860–1863. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7098.1860

West, R. (2017). Tobacco smoking: Health impact, prevalence, correlates and interventions. Psychology & Health, 32(8), 1018–1036. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2017.1325890

Wittenberg, R. E., Wolfman, S. L., De Biasi, M., & Dani, J. A. (2020). Nicotinic acetylcholine receptors and nicotine addiction: A brief introduction. Neuropharmacology, 177, 108256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropharm.2020.108256