Vaping

Abstract

Vaping, which the Medical Subject Headings vocabulary classifies under smoking, is the inhaling of an aerosol produced by heating a nicotine solution rather than by burning tobacco. Cognitive psychology reads it through the same rate hypothesis that orders the other forms of nicotine use, but vaping occupies a distinctive place on that spectrum: unlike the fixed-fast cigarette or the fixed-slow cigar, its delivery is engineered and tunable, set by device power, nicotine concentration, and the chemical form of the nicotine. The protonated nicotine salts introduced around 2015 made high-concentration aerosol smooth enough to inhale deeply, pushing delivery kinetics back toward the cigarette and with them the reinforcing power the rate hypothesis predicts. This article develops that account—delivery kinetics, the salt chemistry that governs inhalability, and the boundaryless access pattern—through a worked example and three interactive demonstrations.

Keywords: nicotine, addiction, reward learning, nicotine salts, delivery kinetics

The electronic cigarette changed the one variable that the rate hypothesis says matters most, and it made that variable adjustable. A cigarette delivers nicotine fast because its acidic smoke forces inhalation; a cigar delivers it slowly because its alkaline smoke is absorbed in the mouth. Both are fixed by the chemistry of burning tobacco. Vaping burns nothing. It heats a liquid, and in doing so it lets a designer choose how much nicotine the aerosol carries, in what chemical form, and how deeply it can comfortably be drawn—and therefore how steeply the drug arrives at the brain.

That freedom is the reason vaping is the instructive modern case. Early e-cigarettes delivered nicotine slowly and inefficiently, closer to the cigar than the cigarette, and reinforced weakly. The nicotine-salt devices that followed engineered the delivery back up toward the cigarette's steep arterial spike, and their rapid uptake among people who had never smoked is the clearest demonstration in recent memory that the rate of delivery, not the presence of the drug, is what makes a nicotine product take hold.

What Vaping Is

An electronic cigarette is a battery-powered device that heats a liquid—usually propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin carrying nicotine and flavourings—until it forms an inhalable aerosol. Nothing is burned. Because there is no combustion, the aerosol lacks the tar and many of the combustion products of tobacco smoke, which is the basis for treating vaping as less harmful than cigarette smoking, though not harmless (Gotts et al., 2019).

In the Medical Subject Headings vocabulary, Vaping is a descriptor filed beneath Smoking. That placement is an indexing convenience rather than a literal claim: vaping produces no smoke, because nothing combusts. MeSH groups it with smoking because the behavior, the route of delivery, and the drug are shared—a person draws an inhalant into the lungs to absorb nicotine—and because the public-health literature on the two is deeply intertwined. The cognitive account follows the same logic: whatever the vocabulary calls it, vaping delivers nicotine to the brain by the pulmonary route, and so it belongs with the other inhaled forms of the drug.

What sets vaping apart from the burned forms is that its delivery is not fixed. A cigarette's speed follows from the acidity of its smoke; a cigar's slowness follows from the alkalinity of its; neither can be adjusted without changing the tobacco. Vaping heats a designed liquid at a chosen power, so three things that are constants for burned tobacco become free parameters: how much nicotine the aerosol carries, what chemical form that nicotine takes, and how deeply the aerosol can be drawn without harshness (Benowitz et al., 2009; St Helen et al., 2016). Those parameters, as the next sections show, are exactly the levers that set delivery speed, and through it the reinforcing power the rate hypothesis identifies.

The two generations of vaping device can be set beside the cigarette on the features the cognitive account turns on (Table 1). Reading across a row shows what the nicotine salt actually changed: not the drug or the route, but the harshness that had kept early devices slow, and with it the slope of the arterial rise that the rate hypothesis reads as reinforcing.

Table 1

Early E-Cigarettes and Nicotine-Salt Devices Compared on the Features That Set Delivery Speed, With the Cigarette for Reference

Vaping and Cognition

Cognitive psychology studies vaping through the same machinery that carries any nicotine habit—reward learning, attention, and cue-driven motivation—but vaping earns its own treatment because it makes the controlling variable adjustable. Where the cigarette and the cigar are fixed demonstrations of fast and slow delivery, vaping is a dial. Three ideas organise the account: that the rate of delivery sets how strongly each dose reinforces, that nicotine-salt chemistry is the lever that was used to turn that rate up, and that the boundaryless access of the device changes the schedule on which the drug is taken.

The rate hypothesis, made adjustable

The central cognitive-pharmacological idea in all nicotine use is the rate hypothesis: the reinforcing power of a dose depends on how quickly it reaches the brain, not merely on how much arrives. A steep rise produces a tight, salient pairing between the act and the dopaminergic reward signal; a slow rise smears that signal across minutes and weakens the association (Russell, 1990; Benowitz et al., 2009). Nicotine is an agonist at nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, and its activation of midbrain dopamine neurons drives release in the mesolimbic reward pathway whatever the product (Wittenberg et al., 2020; Dani & Balfour, 2011); what differs across products is the slope of the arrival.

Vaping is the case where that slope is not given but chosen. Early e-cigarettes delivered nicotine slowly and in small amounts, producing arterial rises far gentler than a cigarette's and reinforcing correspondingly weakly; measured pharmacokinetics placed them well short of the cigarette (St Helen et al., 2016). Later devices raised the delivered dose and steepened its rise. Because the rate hypothesis ties reinforcement to the slope, the same device category can be made weakly or strongly addictive by engineering alone—a point no fixed product can demonstrate. Demo 1 lets the delivery rate be dialled from a slow early e-cigarette toward a cigarette-like spike and reads off the initial rate of rise the hypothesis says matters.

Nicotine salts and the engineering of delivery speed

How does a designer steepen the delivery of an aerosol? The decisive innovation, introduced commercially around 2015, was the protonated nicotine salt. Freebase nicotine—the un-ionised form that crosses membranes readily—is also harsh and alkaline in aerosol, so a high-concentration freebase liquid is too unpleasant to inhale deeply. Adding an acid, commonly benzoic acid, protonates the nicotine and lowers the aerosol's pH, which cuts the throat harshness and lets a user comfortably inhale a far higher nicotine concentration than freebase would allow (Benowitz et al., 2009; St Helen et al., 2016).

The cognitive consequence is indirect but decisive. The protonated nicotine is not itself the membrane-permeant form—that is still the freebase—but by making a high dose tolerable to inhale, the salt lets much more nicotine be drawn deep into the lungs on each puff, where some reverts to the absorbable form and crosses rapidly. The net effect is a steeper, larger arterial rise from a smoother draw: delivery engineered back toward the cigarette's fast end without the cigarette's harsh smoke. The salt formulation is, in cognitive terms, a tool for turning up the rate the reward system reads. Demo 2 makes the chemistry quantitative, plotting the harshness that limits inhalable concentration against aerosol pH so the lever behind the salt devices is visible on a curve.

Boundaryless access and the schedule of use

Steep delivery sets how strongly each dose reinforces; the schedule on which doses are taken sets how deeply the behavior is overlearned. Here vaping differs from the cigarette in a second way. A cigarette is a discrete unit—lit, smoked in about ten puffs over a few minutes, then finished—and that unit imposes a natural boundary on use. A vaping device has no such boundary. It can be drawn on once and pocketed, then drawn on again minutes later, through the whole of a day, with no unit to complete and no ash to signal a stopping point (West, 2017).

That boundaryless access tends toward a grazing pattern: many small, scattered puffs rather than a bounded bout. Each puff is still a cue-paired nicotine dose, so the total count of discretely reinforced trials in a day can be large, and the behavior is rehearsed across a wider range of contexts than the cigarette's enforced pauses allow. By the same overlearning logic that makes the cigarette automatic, a product drawn on continuously through the day is paired with an unusually dense and varied set of cues (Rose, 2006). Demo 3 makes the schedule explicit, contrasting the discrete pack structure of the cigarette with the continuous grazing of the vaping device and the cumulative count of reinforced trials each produces.

Cues, wanting, and flavour

A steeply reinforced, densely repeated behavior recruits the associative machinery of addiction with force. The incentive-sensitization theory distinguishes two dissociable components of reward: liking, the hedonic pleasure a drug delivers, and wanting, the motivational pull toward it. Repeated use sensitizes the wanting system while liking stays flat or fades, so a user can be driven toward a device that no longer delivers much pleasure (Robinson & Berridge, 1993; Berridge & Robinson, 2016).

Vaping adds a distinctive source of cues: flavour. Sweet and fruit flavourings, largely absent from cigarettes, give the aerosol a palatable taste that functions as an additional conditioned stimulus and lowers the barrier to initiation, which is part of why flavoured products feature so heavily in the uptake among young people (Miech et al., 2019). As with any nicotine product, the sensitized wanting then attaches to whatever cues accompany use; the portability and discretion of the device mean those cues can be sampled almost anywhere, widening the web of triggers rather than narrowing it.

Dependence, cessation, and cognition

Because vaping delivers the same drug by the same route, it produces the same dependence when the delivery is steep enough, and the same cognitive story applies: acute nicotine yields small, genuine gains in sustained attention, but in a dependent user much of the felt benefit is relief of withdrawal rather than enhancement above baseline (Heishman et al., 2010; Koob & Volkow, 2016). The tunability cuts both ways. A device engineered for a steep, cigarette-like rise can addict a never-smoker; the same adjustability makes vaping an effective substitute for an established smoker, because it can reproduce enough of the cigarette's delivery to relieve craving while removing the combustion that causes most of the disease.

That second use is now well evidenced. A randomised trial found e-cigarettes roughly twice as effective as nicotine-replacement therapy for smokers trying to quit, and a Cochrane review concludes with high certainty that nicotine-containing e-cigarettes increase cessation rates relative to traditional therapies (Hajek et al., 2019; Lindson et al., 2024). The cognitive reading is coherent: a product that partly reproduces the cigarette's reinforcing delivery can displace the cigarette, which is a benefit for a dependent smoker and a hazard for someone who would otherwise take no nicotine at all (Klemperer & Hughes, 2019).

Worked Example

Vaping's defining property—that its delivery can be dialled—can be made numerical on the same model used for the burned forms.

Delivery rate across the spectrum. Model brain nicotine after a puff 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)

The quantity the rate hypothesis says the reward system reads is the initial rate of rise, the slope at the start, which is C_max / τ. A cigarette sits near τ = 0.3 min; take a slow early e-cigarette at τ = 2.0 min with a modest peak C_max = 10 ng/mL, and a nicotine-salt device engineered toward the cigarette at τ = 0.6 min with C_max = 20 ng/mL:

- Early e-cigarette: 10 / 2.0 = 5.0 ng/mL per minute - Nicotine-salt device: 20 / 0.6 = 33.3 ng/mL per minute

A better than sixfold increase in the steepness of the leading edge, produced entirely by engineering the liquid and the device—the quantitative face of why the salt devices took hold where early e-cigarettes had not. For reference, a cigarette at τ = 0.3 min and C_max = 25 ng/mL rises at 83.3 ng/mL per minute, so the salt device closes much of the gap to the cigarette while the early e-cigarette did not.

The inhalability lever. The harshness that limits how much nicotine can be inhaled tracks the un-ionised (freebase) fraction in the aerosol, which follows the Henderson–Hasselbalch relation for a weak base of dissociation constant pK_a ≈ 8.0:

f_freebase = 1 / (1 + 10^{(pK_a − pH)})

- Freebase liquid, aerosol pH 8.0: 1 / (1 + 10⁰) = 50% freebase—harsh, so only a low concentration is tolerable to inhale. - Nicotine-salt liquid, aerosol pH 6.0: 1 / (1 + 10^2.0) = 1 / 101 = about 1% freebase—smooth, so a far higher concentration can be inhaled deeply.

The salt does not make the nicotine more absorbable per molecule—the freebase fraction is actually lower. It works by making a high dose tolerable, so that the far larger amount drawn into the lungs more than offsets the smaller free fraction, yielding a steeper net rise. A two-unit drop in aerosol pH is the whole trick.

The access schedule. A pack-a-day cigarette smoker takes about 10 puffs × 20 cigarettes = 200 discretely reinforced doses a day, bounded into twenty bouts. A vaping device drawn on, say, every 15 waking minutes across a 16-hour day takes 16 × 4 = 64 puffs, but with no bout structure at all—scattered across the whole day and paired with a wider range of contexts. The count can be lower than the cigarette's while the behavior is spread across more cues, because the device removes the unit boundary that otherwise gathers smoking into discrete episodes. Demo 1 varies τ and C_max; Demo 2 varies the aerosol pH; Demo 3 varies the access schedule.

Discussion

Read cognitively, vaping is the rate hypothesis turned into a dial. The burned forms demonstrate the principle by contrast—the fast cigarette against the slow cigar—but each is fixed by the chemistry of its smoke. Vaping demonstrates it by construction: holding the drug and the pulmonary route constant, a designer can set the slope of nicotine's arrival anywhere from cigar-slow to nearly cigarette-fast, and the product's grip on its users tracks that setting (Benowitz, 2010; St Helen et al., 2016). The commercial history is a natural experiment in the hypothesis: early slow devices reinforced weakly and spread little, and it was the nicotine-salt engineering of a steep, smooth delivery that produced a product addictive enough to spread on its own (Russell, 1990).

That same adjustability is why vaping resists a single verdict. For an established smoker, a device tuned to approximate the cigarette's delivery can displace the cigarette and remove the combustion that causes most of the harm, and the cessation evidence bears this out (Hajek et al., 2019; Lindson et al., 2024). For a young never-smoker, the same engineered delivery—made palatable by flavour and portable by design—can create a dependence that would not otherwise have formed (Miech et al., 2019). The cognitive account does not resolve that tension, but it explains it: a product built to deliver nicotine fast will reinforce strongly, and strong reinforcement is a benefit or a harm depending entirely on who is at the other end of it.

Current Directions

Three fronts are active. The first is the comparative pharmacokinetics of the newest devices: measuring how closely nicotine-salt and high-power products now approach the cigarette's arterial spike, because a product that matches the cigarette's delivery speed may match its addictiveness, and the policy stakes of that comparison are large (St Helen et al., 2016; Benowitz, 2010). The second is the balance between cessation benefit and youth uptake—quantifying the population trade-off between adult smokers who switch and adolescents who initiate, a trade-off whose terms the cognitive account frames but cannot settle (Hajek et al., 2019; Miech et al., 2019). The third is the still-unsettled health picture of long-term aerosol exposure, brought into focus by the 2019 outbreak of e-cigarette or vaping product use–associated lung injury (EVALI), which was traced chiefly to vitamin E acetate in illicit cannabis-containing products rather than to nicotine vaping itself, but which underlined how little is known about what chronic inhalation of these aerosols does (Blount et al., 2020; Gotts et al., 2019).

Common Misconceptions

Vaping is just smoking without the smell.

It is a different physical process. Smoking burns tobacco and inhales the smoke; vaping heats a liquid and inhales an aerosol, with no combustion and so none of the tar that combustion produces. MeSH files vaping under smoking for indexing convenience, not because anything is burned (Gotts et al., 2019).

All e-cigarettes deliver nicotine the same way.

They do not, and that is the central point. Delivery depends on device power, nicotine concentration, and chemical form; early e-cigarettes delivered slowly and weakly, while nicotine-salt devices were engineered for a steep, cigarette-like rise. The same category spans much of the delivery spectrum (St Helen et al., 2016).

Nicotine salts make the nicotine more absorbable.

The opposite, per molecule: the protonated salt has a lower freebase fraction than an alkaline liquid, so less of each molecule is in the membrane-permeant form. The salt works by cutting harshness, which lets a far higher concentration be inhaled deeply, so the larger amount drawn in more than offsets the smaller free fraction (Benowitz et al., 2009).

Vaping is proven safe because it has no smoke.

Less harmful than cigarette smoking is not the same as safe. Removing combustion removes much of the harm, but the long-term effects of inhaling these aerosols are not yet established, and the EVALI outbreak showed how an additive in the liquid can cause acute injury (Gotts et al., 2019; Blount et al., 2020).

Glossary

Addiction.

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

Aerosol.

The suspension of fine liquid droplets produced by heating a vaping liquid; it carries nicotine into the lungs without combustion, and so is not smoke despite the shared route of inhalation.

Delivery kinetics.

The time-course over which a drug reaches the brain after a dose; for vaping it is set by device power, nicotine concentration, and form, and captured here by the time constant τ.

Dependence.

The state in which a drug is needed to feel normal and its absence produces withdrawal; vaping produces it when the delivery is engineered steep enough to reinforce strongly.

EVALI.

E-cigarette or vaping product use–associated lung injury, an acute outbreak traced chiefly to vitamin E acetate in illicit cannabis-containing liquids rather than to nicotine vaping itself.

Freebase nicotine.

The un-ionised form of nicotine that crosses membranes readily; it is also harsh and alkaline in aerosol, which limits the concentration that can be comfortably inhaled.

Henderson–Hasselbalch relation.

The equation linking the ionisation of a weak acid or base to pH; applied to nicotine it gives the freebase fraction, and so the harshness, as a function of aerosol pH.

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.

Incentive-sensitization.

The theory that repeated drug use sensitizes the brain's wanting system, so cue-driven craving grows and persists while the pleasure (liking) stays flat or fades.

Nicotine salt.

A protonated nicotine formulation, made by adding an acid such as benzoic acid, that lowers aerosol harshness and so lets a high nicotine concentration be inhaled deeply; the engineering innovation that steepened vaping's delivery toward the cigarette.

Nicotine.

The principal addictive compound carried by vaping liquids, an agonist at nicotinic acetylcholine receptors that triggers mesolimbic dopamine release; the same molecule as in tobacco, differing only in how fast it is delivered.

Nicotinic acetylcholine receptor.

The ligand-gated ion channel at which nicotine acts; its activation on midbrain dopamine neurons links the drug to the reward pathway and is the molecular starting point of the habit.

Overlearning.

The entrenching of a behavior through repetition far beyond acquisition, making it automatic and cue-triggered; vaping's boundaryless access can overlearn use across an unusually wide range of contexts.

Pulmonary absorption.

Uptake of a drug across the large surface of the lungs; for nicotine it is fast and feeds directly into the arterial circulation, and it is the route vaping shares with 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; vaping makes this rate an adjustable design parameter.

Reinforcement.

The strengthening of a behavior by its consequences; vaping is reinforced in proportion to how steeply its engineered delivery brings nicotine to the brain.

Smoking cessation.

The process of stopping tobacco smoking; a vaping device tuned to approximate the cigarette's delivery can substitute for it, and trial evidence finds nicotine e-cigarettes raise cessation rates.

Wanting.

The motivational pull toward a reward, dissociable from the pleasure it gives; sensitized by repeated nicotine use and attached to cues, it is the craving that drives vaping and relapse.

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 the arterial kinetics of inhaled nicotine underpins the rate-based account that vaping now makes adjustable. 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 any nicotine habit. Faculty

Peter Hajek

(Health and Lifestyle Research Unit, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London). A clinical psychologist and addiction researcher whose randomised trial established e-cigarettes as an effective aid to smoking cessation. Faculty · Google Scholar · Wikipedia

Jamie Hartmann-Boyce

(Department of Health Promotion and Policy, University of Massachusetts Amherst). A health-behaviour scientist who leads the Cochrane reviews synthesising the evidence on electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation. Faculty · Google Scholar

Michael A. H. Russell

(1932–2009) (Addiction Research Unit, Institute of Psychiatry, London). A pioneer of nicotine science whose work on delivery and dependence laid the groundwork for the rate hypothesis that vaping illustrates by making delivery speed an engineering choice. Wikipedia

Robert West

(Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London). A leading figure in the science of tobacco use and cessation whose syntheses frame the behavioural context in which vaping is used and assessed. Faculty · Google Scholar · Wikipedia

Frequently Asked Questions

Is vaping the same as smoking?

No. Smoking burns tobacco and inhales the resulting smoke; vaping heats a liquid and inhales the aerosol, with no combustion and so none of the tar that burning produces. The two share the drug, the pulmonary route, and much of the behavior, which is why the Medical Subject Headings vocabulary files vaping under smoking, but nothing is actually burned.

Why did vaping become so much more popular after about 2015?

Because the delivery was engineered to be stronger. Early e-cigarettes delivered nicotine slowly and inefficiently, so they reinforced weakly. The introduction of protonated nicotine salts cut the harshness of the aerosol, letting devices carry high nicotine concentrations that could be inhaled deeply, which steepened the arterial rise toward a cigarette-like spike and made the products far more reinforcing.

What are nicotine salts, and why do they matter?

A nicotine salt is nicotine with an acid added, which lowers the aerosol's pH and reduces throat harshness. That smoothness lets a user comfortably inhale a much higher nicotine concentration than a harsh freebase liquid would allow, so more nicotine reaches the lungs on each puff and the delivery is faster and larger. The salt is the lever that turned vaping's delivery up toward the cigarette.

Is vaping safer than smoking cigarettes?

It is widely judged less harmful, chiefly because it removes combustion and the tar that causes most smoking-related disease. But less harmful is not the same as safe: the long-term effects of inhaling these aerosols are not yet established, and the EVALI outbreak showed that an additive in the liquid can cause acute lung injury.

Can vaping help someone quit smoking?

Yes, for established smokers. A randomised trial found e-cigarettes about twice as effective as nicotine-replacement therapy, and a Cochrane review concludes with high certainty that nicotine e-cigarettes raise cessation rates. The cognitive reason is that a device can be tuned to reproduce enough of the cigarette's reinforcing delivery to relieve craving, while sparing the smoker the combustion.

If vaping helps smokers quit, why the concern about young people?

Because the same engineered appeal works on people who would otherwise take no nicotine. Flavourings and a steep, smooth delivery make the products attractive and addictive to never-smokers, and adolescent uptake rose sharply after the nicotine-salt devices appeared. A product that reinforces strongly is a benefit for a dependent smoker and a hazard for a young never-smoker.

Why does vaping tend to be used throughout the day rather than in bouts?

Because the device has no unit boundary. A cigarette is lit, smoked in about ten puffs, and finished, which gathers use into discrete episodes. A vaping device can be drawn on once and pocketed, then drawn on again any number of times, so use tends to graze across the whole day and to pair the behavior with a wider range of cues.

Does the brain respond to vaped nicotine differently from smoked nicotine?

The pharmacology is the same—nicotine acting at the same receptors to drive the same dopamine reward signal—so what differs is only the delivery. A slow e-cigarette produces a gentle rise that reinforces weakly; a nicotine-salt device produces a steep rise that reinforces strongly. The rate of arrival, not any difference in the drug, is what sets how addictive a given device is.

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

Blount, B. C., Karwowski, M. P., Shields, P. G., Morel-Espinosa, M., Valentin-Blasini, L., Gardner, M., ... Pirkle, J. L. (2020). Vitamin E acetate in bronchoalveolar-lavage fluid associated with EVALI. New England Journal of Medicine, 382(8), 697–705. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1916433

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

Gotts, J. E., Jordt, S. E., McConnell, R., & Tarran, R. (2019). What are the respiratory effects of e-cigarettes? BMJ, 366, l5275. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l5275

Hajek, P., Phillips-Waller, A., Przulj, D., Pesola, F., Myers Smith, K., Bisal, N., ... 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

Klemperer, E. M., & Hughes, J. R. (2019). Does the magnitude of reduction in cigarettes per day predict smoking cessation? A qualitative review. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 21(5), 582–589. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/nty056

Koob, G. F., & Volkow, N. D. (2016). Neurobiology of addiction: A neurocircuitry analysis. The Lancet Psychiatry, 3(8), 760–773. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(16)00104-8

Lindson, N., Butler, A. R., McRobbie, H., Bullen, C., Hajek, P., Begh, R., ... Hartmann-Boyce, J. (2024). Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 1, CD010216. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub8

Miech, R., Johnston, L., O'Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Patrick, M. E. (2019). Trends in adolescent vaping, 2017–2019. New England Journal of Medicine, 381(15), 1490–1491. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc1910739

Robinson, T. E., & Berridge, K. C. (1993). The neural basis of drug craving: An incentive-sensitization theory of addiction. Brain Research Reviews, 18(3), 247–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0173(93)90013-P

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

St Helen, G., Havel, C., Dempsey, D. A., Jacob, P., & Benowitz, N. L. (2016). Nicotine delivery, retention and pharmacokinetics from various electronic cigarettes. Addiction, 111(3), 535–544. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.13183

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