FDA To Reduce Nicotine Content in Cigarettes to Non-Addictive Levels

Controlling levels on nicotine in a cigarette? Heaven forbid an individual makes a choice or a decision based on their own wants or needs.

I don't even smoke, but this is just infringing upon an individual's right to choice.

I totally see where you're coming from, but I disagree. People can still purchase cigarettes. The quality of the cigarette will still remain about the same. The addictive chemical is being reduced. The integrity of the product remains the same, however.
 
People still develop a physical dependency to nicotine. No one smokes because it's cool or fun. They do it because they need to. A few cigarettes when you're young can quickly turn into a life long addiction because of the nicotine.

I can definitely see current smokers buying more, in order to satisfy their cravings. However, most don't have the financial means to do so. After a while of less exposure to nicotine, quitting would become easier as well.

For new smokers, their dependency to nicotine would be far less from the get go.
Sure, there is an addiction to nicotine. But again, if it was the primary issue, the gum and patches would be much more effective then they are.

Nicotine is also out the system in a short period of time, so the chemical dependence is over within days to weeks of quitting. It's more the psychological addiction to smoking and to a lesser extent nicotine that fuels the addiction.
 
Controlling levels on nicotine in a cigarette? Heaven forbid an individual makes a choice or a decision based on their own wants or needs.

I don't even smoke, but this is just infringing upon an individual's right to choice.
The same idividuals who want tax payers covering their blood pressure meds, stroke recovery, heart surgeries, cancer treatments, etc.
 
I totally see where you're coming from, but I disagree. People can still purchase cigarettes. The quality of the cigarette will still remain about the same. The addictive chemical is being reduced. The integrity of the product remains the same, however.
An individual has the right to decide for themselves what level of nicotine is appropriate for them. Just like an individual has the right to decide how much alcohol to consume at any given time.

No one else has the right to dictate your body chemistry for you.

If a new law were to dictate that cough syrup must be watered down to ineffective levels, would you still claim that "the integrity of the product remains the same"?

I understand your perspective, but your argument is severely lacking.
 
An individual has the right to decide for themselves what level of nicotine is appropriate for them. Just like an individual has the right to decide how much alcohol to consume at any given time.

No one else has the right to dictate your body chemistry for you.

If a new law were to dictate that cough syrup must be watered down to ineffective levels, would you still claim that "the integrity of the product remains the same"?

I understand your perspective, but your argument is severely lacking.

Honestly, I'd assume most people would be in favor for such a thing given the rising costs of healthcare. Fewer people suffering from smoking related ailments would mean more healthy people paying into the pool, thus lowering costs for everyone.
 
Honestly, I'd assume most people would be in favor for such a thing given the rising costs of healthcare. Fewer people suffering from smoking related ailments would mean more healthy people paying into the pool, thus lowering costs for everyone.
You just made an excellent argument against nationalized Healthcare.

In order for National Healthcare to work, peaceful individual choices must be infringed upon.

In a more individualized Market, an individual's choices are a private matter, not something to be regulated.
 
Vaping products btw are not covered under this, they're not up for review until 2021 I believe.

Personally I believe that this will just create an even bigger market for illicit tobacco....

yeah, but still, to make much money you would have to move a lot of product, and you can't sell tobacco for cocaine prices, or even cannabis prices.
 
I am a pack a day smoker, and have been for around twenty years. Never once have I thought "damn, if only I had a nicotine patch, instead of this sweet, sweet cigarette with my coffee." I've always thought the addiction was in the habit and routine, and the sensation you get when you inhale, not the nicotine. I've quit, or rather postponed, smoking three times. All done with regular chewing gum and the will power to change my routine. That's all it took, and if I really wanted to, I could do it again quite easily. All those nicotine replacements are a waste of money, as far as I'm concerned. If you really want to quit, you'll quit. Withdrawal symptoms from quitting smoking, are practically non-existent. You won't be climbing up the walls, or puking your guts out, if you just stop smoking.

Now of course, everyone is different and I'm only speaking for myself. Like I said though, if they removed nicotine altogether somehow, smoking would not just all of a sudden cease to exist. People would still smoke, because the habit and routine of smoking is addictive. More so, than the nicotine.

You're basically describing what Peterson is explaining here



The habit and routine is addictive because of the hit of nicotine. No nicotine, no reinforcement. This should be very effective at stopping new smokers. Current smokers less so since they're conditioned already, but it should lessen the grip.
 
yeah, but still, to make much money you would have to move a lot of product, and you can't sell tobacco for cocaine prices, or even cannabis prices.

Illicit tobacco is already a huge business. Google Grand River Enterprises if you want to know more. They present themselves as a legit company, but they aren't. A lot of illegal product here and in the States comes from them.

Here's a look at GRE CEOs mancaves:

http://www.wheels.ca/news/ultra-luxury-mancave-houses-one-mans-multi-million-dollar-car-collection/

Yea, I'd say business is good....
 
What a short sighted and useless "solution"
 
Illicit tobacco is already a huge business. Google Grand River Enterprises if you want to know more. They present themselves as a legit company, but they aren't. A lot of illegal product here and in the States comes from them.

Here's a look at GRE CEOs mancaves:

http://www.wheels.ca/news/ultra-luxury-mancave-houses-one-mans-multi-million-dollar-car-collection/

Yea, I'd say business is good....

why isn't ATF on them, because they are in Canada? And if I understand, they sell untaxed cigs right?

still though, even if they are making a lot of money now, they would be taking a much larger risk if the product they were selling were illegal, meaning they would have to smuggle into the US, and if you are going to all of that trouble with all of that risk, you might as well be selling something that would make you a larger profit.

And still too, the end goal of the US government is achieved, as not many new tobacco users are going to want to get involved in something that is illegal, especially if it is very expensive and lacks the high you get from other illegal drugs.
 
While I find your post enlightening, can you actually tell us what about his quote is wrong? He isn't wrong. Second hand smoke is giving thousands of people lung cancer. Indisputable fact. In fact, I cant really believe anyone on here even defends smoking. It is 100% harmful. As a MMA forum, why do something like smoking that will harm your lungs and reduce your endurance(lung capacity) and make you more likely for a heart attack.
 
You just made an excellent argument against nationalized Healthcare.

In order for National Healthcare to work, peaceful individual choices must be infringed upon.

In a more individualized Market, an individual's choices are a private matter, not something to be regulated.

I'm making the case that any insurance policy you choose, will undoubtedly put you in a pool with people that smoke. They may be healthy at the time they joined, but we all know that smoking has detrimental effects, which drive up prices for the rest. Universal healthcare or not, this is how insurance companies operate.
 
Who cares? It cost Medicare a shit fuck amount of money. I am tired of paying for people who choose to smoke. If you want to smoke, pick up the tab yourself.
This. And guess what, if the left manages to get single payer passed, what do you think will happen to the tobacco industry? Or to smokers? If we go single payer, I fully support making smokers and the like pay their own tab. I wont pay for your addiction asshole.
 
TELEMMGLPICT000125748643-large_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqV3dVgzZ0hKVb8AhxVuOTfX8-Zpwq5zJzOyJCJIZMqrk.jpeg


Nicotine in cigarettes is set to be cut to non-addictive levels for the first time after American regulators unveiled radical plans aimed at reducing the number of smokers, in a move hailed by British health experts as having “international significance”.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has launched a landmark consultation to restrict nicotine levels, citing the “overwhelming” levels of death cigarettes cause.

Research has suggested cigarettes would have to be made 30 times weaker to effectively become non-addictive.

The development is a bad one for the global tobacco industry, with estimates the largest producers could lose around $60 billion (£46 billion) in market value.

Announcing the move, Scott Gottlieb, the FDA commissioner said it would “begin a public dialogue” on introducing more regulations, saying cigarettes are the “only legal consumer product that, when used as intended, will kill half of all long-term users”.

“Unless we change course, 5.6 million young people alive today will die prematurely later in life from tobacco use.” Among the plans, the FDA said it would also be looking to make it easier for less harmful nicotine products to enter the market and said it “must also recognise potential for innovation”.

Prof Linda Bauld, professor of health policy at the University of Stirling, said: “These long-awaited plans have international significance. They suggest the US may be the first country in the world to require product standard for cigarettes that include reducing nicotine to non-addictive levels.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/28/us-plans-nicotine-cut-make-smoking-non-addictive/

Wow at how the mighty tobacco lobby has fallen. Getting hit when republicans hold power.

Wonder if this is retribution, or just trying to do the right thing.
 
I am a pack a day smoker, and have been for around twenty years. Never once have I thought "damn, if only I had a nicotine patch, instead of this sweet, sweet cigarette with my coffee." I've always thought the addiction was in the habit and routine, and the sensation you get when you inhale, not the nicotine. I've quit, or rather postponed, smoking three times. All done with regular chewing gum and the will power to change my routine. That's all it took, and if I really wanted to, I could do it again quite easily. All those nicotine replacements are a waste of money, as far as I'm concerned. If you really want to quit, you'll quit. Withdrawal symptoms from quitting smoking, are practically non-existent. You won't be climbing up the walls, or puking your guts out, if you just stop smoking.

Now of course, everyone is different and I'm only speaking for myself. Like I said though, if they removed nicotine altogether somehow, smoking would not just all of a sudden cease to exist. People would still smoke, because the habit and routine of smoking is addictive. More so, than the nicotine.
I agree with this. I talked about quitting smoking for a good 5 years before I did, I just didn't really want to. I liked to smoke. I got extra breaks at work FFS. I actually quit because of the cost. The taxes went up so much on them, cigarettes were less than 2 dollars a pack when I started smoking and were pushing 5 bucks a pack when I quit. I started rolling my own with those rolling machines and filter tubes. I got up a half hour early for work to roll my smokes for the day. As I sat there covered in tobacco duff rolling shitty cigarettes, I said fuck this and quit on the spot. Never smoked again and never even had a real craving once the appeal wore off.
 
It's good for young future smokers. Horrible for any long time smoker.

I smoke, and don't care if they do this. I am far more mentally addicted to smoking, then physically.

Cigerettes have many known carcinogens, but the truth is that 98% of smokers never get lung cancer. Now that is separate from emphysema, or other related issues, but those can be offset by other lifestyle choices. If you exercise daily, eat well, and smoke, vs don't exercise, eat like shit, and don't smoke, who is really likely to have worse health outcomes?
 
The fact that there are THOUSANDS of Americans getting lungs cancer each year despite never smoked a day in their life thanks to the exhaled second-hand smoke from their friends, families, and neighbors is why I think it's ludicrous that smoking is not banned like hard drugs, consider the collatteral damage involved.

If my next-door neighbors choose to inject poison into their veins, at least I'm sure that poison doesn't fly out of their veins through the air into MY veins and give ME health problems later, health problems that I would have to pay for and not them.
The best arguments seat themselves here, but the truth is that it's up to states to legislate protections against this. Smokers howl in the states where they're forced outside of even dive bars, but here's an example where liberal California was way, way ahead of the curve. It's entirely appropriate. I can't stand cigarette smoke, and I want nothing to do with it. When I go to a bar, I don't want to breathe it. Go outside.

But how deep do we go, here, @Arkain2K? Where does this stop? What about industrial pollution that is causing the same problems in places like the American Suth where the air quality is horrible? Much of that pollution isn't created merely by coal, but by factories which put out products that are for mere recreation, trinkets and the like, so the usual arguments of unavoidable pollution due to means of sustenance don't hold up. Meanwhile, what percent of that coal is devoted to powering industry that does nothing to ensure our survival or improve the quality of our lives in any meaningful way beyond recreation?

Poison is everywhere, and it's not necessarily putting food on tables.

Smoking cigarettes is easily one of the worst things you can do to your body, but it's a slow death. So far I've liked the restrictive protections that states like California have put in place, including the potential punishments against those who endanger the most vulnerable populations (i.e. children), and the concomitant strategy of just taxing the living bejeesus out of cigarettes while earmarking large portions of that tax money for health care subsidy.

Otherwise, I believe the market has already innovated the solution to this problem, in vaping, and that this will solve the problem long-term. If we couple this with strategies like the steep aforementioned tariffs people will gravitate towards the vaping solutions based on cost alone (because the lack of hydrocarbons makes a HUGE difference in their deadliness to both the smoker and those who didn't choose to smoke, and that should be reflected in the rates of taxation because of the ultimate burden to health care + other costs of litigation related to the collateral of lost life).
 
Sure, there is an addiction to nicotine. But again, if it was the primary issue, the gum and patches would be much more effective then they are.

Nicotine is also out the system in a short period of time, so the chemical dependence is over within days to weeks of quitting. It's more the psychological addiction to smoking and to a lesser extent nicotine that fuels the addiction.
To add to this, it is the endorphins your brain releases, when you engage in this act of positive association.

I don't think most people understand that you can be addicted to porn or video games. People put far too much weight in physical addictions. It more about brain chemistry, then a physical withdrawal.
 
Back
Top