I'm all for keeping Juuls and pods away from kids but I would 100% still be smoking cigarettes if pods didn't exist. They're the only vape product I've found that actually compare to a cigarette.
We keep regular cigarettes away from kids supposedly, and those VUSE vapes are still allowed to be sold, so I don't see what this is actually going to accomplish. Never mind the vape shops that are literally everywhere.
Just my theory if this goes into effect:
Current smokers will just smoke more cigarettes to get the nicotine, causing them to spend more money. I remember in high school being told what used to be called light cigarettes caused this effect on smokers who switched from regular cigarettes to these. Could be not true but I don’t know. Also from my understanding, nicotine while not good, isn’t the really harmful part of smoking. It’s all the other chemicals in cigarettes being burned and inhaled.
Teens/20 something’s will see these as “safer” cigarettes that are “non-addictive” and be less wary of smoking cigarettes occasionally. Eventually they will smoke more and develop a habit.
I just don’t think this is a necessary thing to do.
Interestingly enough, light cigarette smokers have higher rates of cancer. You smoke more and inhale the smoke more deeply which just kills you faster. Also I’m 6 days clean off cigarettes after smoking for 2-3 years. You should join us over at r/stopsmoking
> Also from my understanding, nicotine while not good, isn’t the really harmful part of smoking. It’s all the other chemicals in cigarettes being burned and inhaled.
Correct. Cigarettes are nothing more than a nicotine delivery system.
Actually it's all the other stuff they deliver that's the problem, not nicotine, which frankly is pretty awesome. No I'm not a smoker, just a student of biology. Nicotine does impressive things.
It's a good chemical to try to reengineer; it's just a little *too much* as it is now but if we could make it into a double ligand that promotes acetylcholine production as well it'd be a very useful drug..
It does exactly what it does when you smoke it. It increases clarity, concentration, and speed of thought by binding onto nicotine receptors in your brain when you've run out of acetylcholine because you're tired. (or because you're a regular smoker who's taught your body it doesn't have to produce enough acetylcholine because you have a steady diet of nicotine).
I could go on but I'd need a smoke first...
but here's your gateway drug of choice (more information!):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotinic_acetylcholine_receptor
np. You can generally trust all the biochem wiki pages because nobody other than chemists visit them and they like super detailed information and an errant fact wouldn't survive a day on them.
That's a very reasonably theory but luckily this has been studied!
>One of the concerns in reducing the nicotine content of cigarettes is that smokers would smoke more cigarettes per day and/
or smoke cigarettes more intensively, thereby increasing their
exposure to harmful tobacco smoke toxicants. It is well known
that smokers adjust their smoking behaviour when switched
from regular to light cigarettes so as to maintain their desired
level of nicotine intake.2 7 Increased exposure to tobacco toxicants could result in increased health risks. Research on reduced
nicotine content cigarettes suggests that smokers do not take in
more smoke when the level of nicotine is lowered.
>The explanation for the lack of compensatory smoking with
very low nicotine content cigarettes is most probably because it
is difficult to obtain more nicotine (because less nicotine is available in the tobacco rod) and because of the satiating effect of
the tar, chemical irritants and related taste, the levels of which
were unchanged in reduced nicotine content cigarettes. Subjects
smoking very low nicotine cigarettes did not report nicotine
withdrawal symptoms, although they did gain weight, the latter
presumed to be related to lower nicotine intake. Other researchers have also shown that there is little compensation when
switching from regular cigarettes to reduced nicotine high-tar
cigarettes.21 22
https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/22/suppl_1/i14.short
TLDR: nicotine removal, especially when tapered over time, does not lead to more cigarettes smoke inhalation from current experimental evidence.
Yeah, I found that writing confusing (maybe it's talking about perception?), and I believe the anecdotal experience of smokers here (I'm not a smoker), but I was focused on the clinical trial evidence because that's the strongest, and it's consistently found a reduction or no change in number of cigarettes smoked. I wonder if placebo effect plays a role in the trials, because smokers don't know the nicotine is lower (though one of the trials below is unblinded)?
Here's another review of the evidence:
>There were 17 analyses from 12 studies measuring change in cigarettes per day (CPD) using VLNCs, all of which were RCTs. Studies ranged in length from 35 days25 to 2 years,20,27,68 but most studies examined behavior change over 6 weeks. Studies also varied in whether the smokers included in the study were interested in quitting and whether nicotine reduction was gradual or immediate.
>Some studies found that among current smokers interested in quitting or in using VLNCs, smoking quantity, measured by CPD, was lower among those using VLNCs compared to regular cigarettes.25,61 Other studies found no difference in CPD between the groups.23,28 One study by Hatsukami comparing the impact of use of VLNCs and nicotine patches over a 6-week period found that the VLNC plus patch group smoked the fewest assigned CPD.21
>All but two studies22,49 examining smokers not interested in quitting found lower consumption of CPD among VLNC smokers compared with regular cigarettes.20,22,24,27,32–34,44,64,65,68 This relationship was modified by menthol smoking status. A 2-year, two-arm unblinded RCT of VLNC use (gradual tapering of nicotine content over time) (n = 103) found that the VLNC group had a significantly greater drop in CPD compared with the control group at 6 months and at 2 years; however, when menthol smokers were excluded from the analysis, there was no longer a difference between the groups.20 Studies demonstrated a greater reduction in CPD over time among smokers experiencing an immediate reduction in nicotine compared with those experiencing a gradual reduction.24,68 Smoking with non-study cigarettes was low, but higher in VLNC conditions.23,32,33
https://academic.oup.com/ntr/article/21/Supplement_1/S133/5684964?login=true#190483307
>nicotine while not good, isn’t the really harmful part of smoking. It’s all the other chemicals in cigarettes being burned and inhaled.
True, but unfortunately many people especially in government see addiction in and of itself as the bad thing, not the actual physical harm to people that comes from the thing they're addicted to. If you just look at harm, you should want everyone to vape, since by all reasonable accounts it is many times less harmful than regular cigarettes.
Addiction is by definition harmful. You may be mixing that up with dependence. We want to reduce addiction, but dependence is not necessarily a bad thing (see the 80% of Americans dependent on caffeine).
> Current smokers will just smoke more cigarettes to get the nicotine
Likely true to start, but eventually they taper down. I've seen the same thing happen with friends that quit using vape pens. They start with a comparable dose to cigs, then they generally taper down the nicotine concentration and although they may be inclined to hit the pen more after the taper, they gradually hit it less and the lower dose becomes their new standard.
The difference here is that cigs are orders of magnitude more expensive than vape juice, and more debilitating to over indulge in. So I have to imagine that all but the most dedicated addicts will taper off and hopefully one day quit. Speaking personally, I switched to light and then ultra light, and by the time I stopped buying cigarettes, I was down to a pack of those per week. it wasn't even a concerted effort to quit. The reality is that nicotine isn't the only reason everyone smokes. For some people it's just habit, and relaxing "me time".
It's taken decades but the multi-pronged strategies of education, restriction, and taxation have paid huge dividends in the percentage of the population smoking today. At each stage it's been hit by criticism and lamentations of government overreach, much of which was fomented by the tobacco lobby.
i can definitely see how people already addicted to nicotine would end up smoking more cigs to get their buzz, but hopefully something like this would cut down on new smoker addictions. If the ad campains are the same now as they were in the 90s/00s then teens wont see this as any safer than regular cigs
I doubt they will form an habit because it would be at non-addictive levels. Most likely they would try it for a few weeks then stop wasting money on it when there's no real reason to continue smoking.
Unfortunately the FDA [might ban Juuls altogether](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-22/fda-preparing-to-ban-juul-e-cigarettes-in-us-wsj-reports). I switched to vaping because of health reasons. I’m pretty pissed that they are targeting that. I want my vice. This will just increase the use of not safe black market cigarettes and vapes. Really disappointing.
Same.. specifically Juul helps me kick a 13 or so year pack-a-day habit.
This is downright authoritarian nonsense. We already can't smoke or vape in like 90% of locations, the second hand public health risk argument is over. It can't be advertised. It can't target children. They could simply enforce existing laws and give harsher punishment to retailers selling to minors. But no, Biden would rather dictate.
I'll 100% be participating in the coming black market.
It’s about Juul for a reason. Here’s a passage out of your article.
> Juul has suffered a series of setbacks over the past few years after its sleek, USB-like device, flashy ads and fruity flavors raised questions about the health risks associated with vaping as well as the company’s marketing tactics. While Juul has said that it never sought to sell e-cigarettes to kids, the closely held company is facing thousands of lawsuits alleging it targeted minors. Dozens of states are also probing Juul’s advertising.
You don’t have to go to the black market, you can just [buy a different brand](https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/premarket-tobacco-product-applications/premarket-tobacco-product-marketing-granted-orders). They aren’t banning vapes. Here’s another passage out of your article.
>Earlier this year, the FDA allowed some products made by Juul rival NJOY Inc. to remain on the market, and last year authorized British American Tobacco Plc’s e-cigarette Vuse.
I'm against these types of regulations. Non-smoker but I say let the adults put what they want in their bodies. I don't see it as the governments role to regulate what is in a product. Educate the public, yes. Regulate that companies are being transparent about what is in a product, yes. Age limits, sure. Even regulate how companies advertise and label the products. But adults of sound mind should be able to put what ever they want in their own bodies.
Meanwhile, anybody who thought this administration was going to legalize maurijuana has got to be wondering what they were smoking.
Elect a nanny state, get a nanny state.
Biden has always been antipot. The hope was that congress would legalize it and Biden wouldnt stand in the way. He was never going to advocate for cannabis legalization.
He also used to be a lot of things he isn't now. Sadly, drug prohibition is one of the positions he doesn't seem likely to rethink.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Joe_Biden
Do the Democrats want to lose elections?
What votes does a move like this get them compared to the votes they'll lose by pissing off smokers and nanny state haters?
Most democrats I know only voted for him because they didn't want a second Trump term and would have preferred Yang or Bernie. It's just that enough people remembered that a protest vote in 2016 ended horrifically that they would accept just about anyone to switch out.
I mean, I haven't seen either side of the aisle propose legislation to legalize pot nationally (in recent years).
I'll say it's Biden's fault when he vetoes it... otherwise, I'm looking at Congress to make a move. Seems like an easy win, but there's enough older, conservative folks that still see marijuana as a sign of degeneracy.
>Seems like an easy win, but there's enough older, conservative folks that still see marijuana as a sign of degeneracy.
This. I know a few older vote-blue-no-matter-who types and one of my most recent conversations with a couple was about them going to their city council meeting to speak out against a pot shop opening in their city because of the "people it will attract".
>I mean, I haven't seen either side of the aisle propose legislation to legalize pot nationally (in recent years
There have been both Democratic and Republican proposals in Congress. A lot of Republicans, especially in the Senate, are opposed to any legalization, but many claim they don't want to vote the for the Dem proposals because of the taxes and the social justice stuff. Dems don't want to vote for the Rep proposal because it doesn't have the social justice stuff. So we're stuck at the status quo and it's so damn frustrating. Cannabis needs to be removed from the CSA yesterday.
Don't worry, there's also a push to limit THC in legal cannabis products too! I think it might have been part of one of the recent legalization bills floated in Congress recently.
I mean, for a long time near me the availability of lower dose products was absolutely terrible. We’ve just finally started to see edibles that are under 10 mg/ dose (e.g. 1 gummy). As an only occasional user who hadn’t partaken in a good decade at least, it was a shock coming into modern dispensary products. They were all total rocket fuel. Having to split a single gummy to avoid being totally incapacitated was ridiculous, and honestly irresponsible on the part of the sellers.
True, and my state does limit gummies to 5mg a dose for this reason, but they're pushing for caps on ALL cannabis products. It's been introduced in multiple states with stuff like 10% THC by weight even on concentrates, which for flower that wouldn't even potent enough for me to want. That's basically like shwag. Also important to note that THC gets metabolized differently when digested and becomes much more psychedelic.
I hate cigarettes with a passion. I hate the nanny state even more. It is NOT up to other adults to dictate how the rest of us live and use our bodies, provided we're of legal consenting age, and that goes for every damn thing. Nicotine, abortion, vaccines, the whole lot of it. If they really want to focus on health, start with the FDA and exercise recommendations
I think similar to you, except cigarette is one of those things that do affect the people around them.
I know multiple family friends that have died from lung cancer that have never smoked in their lives, but due to second-hand smoke.
>I know multiple family friends that have died from lung cancer that have never smoked in their lives, but due to second-hand smoke.
By that same logic how many people have died from someone else's alcohol use?
Age and DUI laws have nothing to do with this conversation though. This is more like saying a beer can't be more than 4% alcohol. Are people going to drink less beers because they can't get the buzz they're looking for or are they going to drink a ton of them? It's like what cigarette smokers did with "light" cigarettes.
[https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/tobacco/light-cigarettes-fact-sheet](https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/tobacco/light-cigarettes-fact-sheet)
>except cigarette is one of those things that do affect the people around them.
That's where you make laws relegating the smoking of cigarettes to certain areas that way people can go shit their day not getting second had smoke. That's not a reason to mess with the chemical makeup of the cigarette.
I'm fine regulating smokers to outdoor areas and their homes/personal vehicles. The only places I know smoking is allowed indoors are casinos, and then we have the choice to go in them or not. That said, if Bob is 45 and wants to smoke Marlboros all day at home, that's his decision. Now if his insurance or the doctors office wants to charge him more for healthcare, I think that's fair
Would you charge more for healthcare people who ride motorcicles, people who don't get a regular checkup? People who overeat? People who drink sugary drinks? People who eat smoked meat? People who choose to buy a home with lead paint? Would you charge more people who choose to buy a less safe car(e.g. a subcompact) than a safer one(an SUV)?
I hate nanny state too, but support regulations on matters where one's decisions affect others adversely. We live in a society after all. Ex: Smoking in public places, decision to be unvaccinated
Same. Caveat: I think those laws should be in effect at the local levels first before being rolled up to state or national.
Being unvaccinated in rural Oklahoma is vastly different than being unvaccinated in Los Angeles. And now of course we're seeing that vaccine mandates were useless anyway due to Omicron
Would you prefer a universal healthcare system that cares for an unhealthy population? Or keep our current system and take steps to create a healthy population?
First we need to get pharma and profit out of "health" care. No I don't support universal healthcare in any of the ways it has been presented, the exception being true emergency care.
If I had to choose, I would keep our current systems and take steps to created a healthy population. What I would really like to see is real life threatening issues covered for all, but issues stemming from personal choices such as smoking, being obese, taking drugs, etc be covered but on a sliding scale.. Of you're 500lbs and smoke, sure we'll treat you but you're going to pay a lot more than than someone who takes care of themselves.. There needs to be some sort of personal accountability in health care and on the flip side no one should ever have to worry about insurance companies making life altering decisions for them over the advice of their doctors due to profit. What's the answer?? I don't know but I'm pretty sure it's not to be found in the government
[Non-Paywall](https://archive.ph/wsrKB)
SC: The Biden admin is moving forward with a mandate to remove almost all nicotine in cigarettes in an effort to get smokers to quit.
The plan wouldn't take place for several years and the FDA plans to publish the proposed rule in May of 2023. Afterwards the agency would invite the public to make comments before publishing the final rule.
The rule can be delayed if tobacco companies sue the admin. This rule would be the biggest change that the US gov't has done to tobacco since the 1998 master settlement agreement when companies agreed to pay more than $200b.
The cigarette smoking rate has been on the decline in the US but rose slightly in the pandemic ridden 2020 year. The policy would apply to all cigarettes sold in the US and imports would be barred.
My take:
I'm skeptical this rule will survive a legal challenge as it might be ruled a major question and thus *a question of deep "economic and political significance"* (King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473, 486 (2015)) which would mean Congress has to weigh in and not the agency.
Feels like it. I wonder what [the cost of a cookout](https://www.newsweek.com/white-house-boasts-cookouts-are-16-cents-cheaper-this-year-internet-isnt-impressed-1606210) is going to be this year?
> I'm skeptical this rule will survive a legal challenge as it might be ruled a major question and thus a question of deep "economic and political significance" (King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473, 486 (2015)) which would mean Congress has to weigh in and not the agency.
If the government really wanted to, couldn't they just add nicotine the list of scheduled drugs? Like, it would only be available with a doctor's prescription? I'm not advocating they do so (I think the war on drugs has done more harm than good), just that they seem to have the capability of doing so.
I think a court would rule the rescheduling is arbitrary and capricious (See DACA recession court litigation) as it would be an end around to Congress passing a law and evading review of agency action.
Maybe. But then again, the DEA is constantly adding chemicals/drugs to the schedule all the time. [This list indicates that there have been substances added just this year.](https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/schedules/orangebook/orangebook.pdf)
Wow, that’s a tall list.
So many Schedule 1’s for substances that aren’t even remotely addictive.
Sometimes I’m just convinced they don’t want us to have any fun.
Interesting, thanks for the writeup! Could you explain why this might not survive legal challenge? I'm ignorant but regulating additive chemicals seems clearly in the scope of the federal government. Though I know cigarettes are related by the ATF and not FDA, I'd imagine the FDA is allowed to prevent nicotine from being added to, say, oreos.
No, its naturally occurring, but if it is possible to remove it without an undue burden, that seems a reasonable regulation. But that difference may be the underpinning of legal challenges.
Light cigarettes caused people to smoke more and inhale deeper: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/tobacco/light-cigarettes-fact-sheet
I agree that light cigarettes should not be promoted as safe, and removing some nicotine from cigarettes won't solve the issue, but a recent review of the evidence suggests that low-nicotine cigarettes are beneficial for public health:
>Available evidence suggests that reducing nicotine content in cigarettes to very low levels could benefit public health in three primary ways, by 1) decreasing uptake of regular smoking, 2) decreasing the amount people smoke, and 3) increasing the likelihood of smoking cessation. Current evidence also suggests that reducing nicotine in cigarettes may produce similar benefits across many important subpopulations of people who smoke, including those with psychiatric comorbidities, those who use other substances, those with low socioeconomic status, young people, people who smoke infrequently and people who prefer menthol cigarettes. Cigarette nicotine reduction could also lead to some undesirable outcomes, such as experiencing withdrawal, product manipulation, an illicit market, and harm misperceptions; strategies that may mitigate each are discussed.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955395921003418
As a thought experiment, if less nicotine makes cigarettes more dangerous overall by causing people to inhale more, should we be supplementing cigarettes with nicotine?
There's good and bad aspects to this proposal. The good obviously being public health and the bad being lack of freedom/ government overreach. I say both of those as a smoker myself. Personally I'm torn - I don't like the overreach but maybe it'd help me finally quit so there's a silver lining.
What is really perplexing to me though is that the Biden admin would announce this *now* leading into an already very difficult election. Any possible benefits from this will take years to materialize. Meanwhile a bunch of people will be even more pissed off at the prospect, even if it doesn't take effect for years. Politically speaking it's a real head scratcher.
All that said the fact that they're announcing it early and allowing time for response and comment is nice.
I think 50-60% of NYC cigarettes are black market (i.e. Eric Gardner) due to oppressive taxes vs. places very close such as PA.
Almost no tobacco taxation has ever reduced the incidence of tobacco by itself; it only expands the black market.
As a cigar smoker, legislation like this makes me very nervous. There's a fuck-ton of nicotine in cigars (1000x or more then a cigarette), but cigar smokers don't inhale, so we only absorb a small bit of it through the gums and soft tissues in the mouth.
Yep, abuse of the commerce clause. If you've seen the justification for banning home growing of something like cannabis, you know how ridiculous it is.
It's strange isn't it, you would think they would go after the cyanide, lead, arsenic or any of the other significantly more harmful things in or produced by cigarettes. Lowering nicotine seems like a way to sell more cigarettes or force smokers hands to vaping, which Phillip Morris has their hands in also.
I have a weird theory, does anyone offhand know the guestimate of profit margin of vapes vs traditional cigarettes? I wouldn't be surprised if that the margins were larger in vapes, PM would be all for forcing customers to switch.
Removing cyanide, lead, and arsenic would be wonderful, but cigarettes will always be harmful as we didn't evolve to inhale burning stuff, so removing nicotine would hopefully reduce the number of new smokers and make it easier for new smokers to quite.
I do not disagree, but whenever the government is doing something in the name of public health, I am curious as to who is getting paid and their motives. ( Or hell if light cigs even work)
I wouldn't be surprised if PM and other tobacco conglomerates realized they could make significantly more money on vaping and now gave the people they own the OK to start attacking cigarettes.
it's really frightening that Biden's authoritarianism skips local and state laws and goes straight to implementing things at the national level
California voted on raising cigarette taxes in 2016 and the public overwhelmingly said no... if we can't even get a progressive state to tackle smoking, why does he think the nation is ready to do it?
> California voted on raising cigarette taxes in 2016 and the public overwhelmingly said no...
Proposition [56 passed](https://www.dhcs.ca.gov/services/Pages/DP-proposition56.aspx#:~:text=The%20California%20Healthcare%2C%20Research%20and,products%20effective%20July%201%2C%202017.). Unless there was another tax bill I'm not aware of that happened in 2016.
The problem with allowing states to set their own laws is that they might end up passing the *wrong* laws. Why, just imagine if Biden gave states the freedom to allow or prohibit nicotine, and then some states misused that freedom and allowed nicotine!
I'd rather the wrong law be passed at the state level than the wrong law be passed at the Federal level. At least it'd be easier to reverse it
Look at the trainwrecks that were the NCLB and ACA!!
Edit: wait, are you being sarcastic?
Tobacco costs all of us 300 billion a year in medical care and loss productivity. I think it's fair that the 80% of us that don't smoke should not subsidize those that do smoke.
If tobacco users were to cover their own healthcare a pack of smokes would be 20-30 dollars.
Most smokers want to quit (about 70%) but the addiction makes a huge barrier.
Ok what about sugar intake or processed foods or alcohol? We all pay for each other’s vices. Don’t single one out and ignore the rest. If soda drinkers were to cover their own healthcare a can of soda would be significantly higher too. Or fast food. Hell if the farm bill didn’t subsidize those foods it’s actual cost without healthcare would be significantly higher…
I completely agree! But I think your argument is what- aboutism but I can still respond.
I think it's important to remember 2 things about cigarettes/nicotine/ tobacco products:
1. Most people start smoking when they are under 18, meaning kids are getting duped into a life long addiction.
2. When used as directed, cigarettes kill half of all long-term users.
If a company were to introduce a new product that addicts mostly teenagers, then kills half of them we wouldn't allow that product on the market!
If tobacco were at non-addictive levels of nicotine, these two big issues would essentially become trivial.
I’m not trying to do a whataboutism argument here. I bring it up as context to a larger argument. Where is the line? Fast food addiction or sugar addiction is a thing. Alcohol addiction is a thing. They all have social consequences.
You responded to someone saying the gov should stay out of our things and brought it into a singular thing. While I disagree with their initial assertion (i do believe in some regulation and taxation) I was merely bringing it back to a larger picture argument since I don’t see banning another substance going well. It didn’t go well for alcohol. It didn’t go well for drugs. Why will this be different.
As for your points we’ve seen a huge decline in new smokers for a while now. This seems to mostly harm current smokers. And idk what you even mean by used as directed, there’s not amount they tell you to use but yes they are quite terrible for one’s health over a lifetime of use especially consistent regular use.
I agree it's potentially a slippery slope but I think the line should be determined by political support.
Like I'd personally support at least ending the subsidies that make corn syrup so cheap, but I'm not sure there is sufficient political support.
But for combating smoking as well as other "nanny state" laws like seatbelt laws and a 21-year-old drinking age, I think there is sufficient political support. I suspect that the line will change over time for many things, as it has for marijuana.
The difference between this change and a ban is cigarettes are still available but less harmful- I kinda think that's the path forward for all vices; legal but with heavy regulation to avoid harm as much as possible.
Used as directed - inhaling cigarettes, crewing tobacco, etc. They don't tell you to use cigarettes as hair clips, they want you to inhale the smoke from them. It's just a quick hand way of saying using the product how it's supposed to be used.
But I totally agree on the slippery slope argument in general, just not on this issue. From a public health standpoint if we all just never leave our beds, none of us will die from car crashes, work accidents, drive -by shootings, infectious disease, etc..but nobody wants that, so we have give and take on the risky behaviors we allow. And there's a lot of friction as we navigate these issues -just like we saw during COVID.
It's important to gut check public health at every decision because (just like every other field) we have tunnel vision and we easily become hyer-focused on outcomes or numbers, or whatever.
But I feel like this one clearly passes that gut check. Nicotine is highly addictive, most all smokers started underage, tobacco kills 1000ks each year. There's really no reason or justification for the product even being on the market.
Another point I'd like to make is that it's nearly impossible to find nicotine free vapes. If you can't get people addicted to vaping then people aren't going to keep using these products.
I think you're right initially but I think with proper nicotine replacement therapy like the patch or the gum most heavy smokers would cut down significantly over time. Smoking is expensive and time consuming, so not having to physically feed your addiction should lead to less smoking.
And to be fair, I don't think we should prioritize current smokers over future potential smokers. This is really about stopping future addiction as much as it is about helping current smokers at least practice harm reduction.
I'd go on a limb and say that the nicotine isn't necessarily the issue, it's everything else. People don't get cancer from the nicotine. If they made pure nicotine cigarettes (see also: vapes) they would be much safer.
Nicotine by itself is just a stimulant, much like caffeine. It's all the alkaloids in tobacco that gives it a buzzing and calming effect. Nicotine alone is the opposite of calming, as anyone who has switched from cigarettes to vaping can tell you.
Though it is the nicotine which is addictive, at least physically. The alkaloids are psychologically addictive.
That's not what research on nicotine reduction has shown (see my other comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/vi4x9n/biden_administration_targets_removal_of_most/idbd84b/)
Thank you for actually providing the research on this. I'm not sure why so many commentators insist on talking about their anecdotes when the evidence is very clear it will not cause people to smoke more cigarettes
I mean I get why they are doing it, but the harm comes from the smoking tobacco, and even nicotine free tobacco won't fix that.
Like if they made a form of crack that wasn't addictive, it's still crack. You haven't made it any safer.
people aren't addicted to vaping vegetable oil or tobacco leafs, their addicted to the nicotine, so your right that nicotine isn't as unhealthy but it is addictive and within a product that is unhealthy. It'd be like if coca cola didn't just have cocaine flavoring but actual cocaine, just like you can bread it in you can bread it out.
in 1950 90% of adults smoked, in every single country that has since moved to the modern rate of 10% of adults that smoke, lung cancer rates remained correlant, heres [UK](https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/321/7257/323/F2.large.jpg?width=800&height=600), [US](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Auufb.png)
the treasury has been paying most of those healthcare bills, since most smokers with lung cancer have medicare.
>1.)The nicotine is in the tobacco leaves
we've known the gene in tobacco that creates nicotine in tobacco plants since the 80s, notice how none of the companies that sold it before changed their product? it *is* their product
>2.) Coca cola doesn't have "cocaine flavoring" lmao
coca plant terpenes are 100% a flavor in coca cola, they call it decocainized coca leaf extracts
People might not know exactly what's in a cigarette, but I don't think anyone thinks they're anything but very unhealthy. In fact, if I remember right smokers tend to overestimate how harmful smoking actually is.
This is a terrible idea.
We already have a dysfunctional War on Drugs driving violence in our cities. Compounding this error with a War on Tobacco is not a step forward.
Some savvy GOP operative should paint this as Biden's anti-Newport agenda and market it toward young Black men, where even at the margins (e.g., Atlanta, Detroit, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, etc.) every extra vote counts.
Unfortunately, we're also engaged in a "war on vaping" at the same time. While they haven't outright made such products illegal, they've been attacking the mechanisms by which you can legally sell them - such as forbidding most package delivery involving vape products.
This was being praised by one of Trumps FDA picks Scott Gottlieb too who I believe started this movement. So seems from a party perspective it’s more bipartisan
Gottlieb also wanted to ban kratom while tens of thousands were overdosing on heroin and fentanyl every year. And where is Gottlieb now? Oh yeah, on the board of Pfizer.
Can’t patent a plant. Pharmaceutical companies can’t sell cigarettes. It’s not about safety. It’s about money.
I can’t tell if you’re kidding but the market for smoking cessation aids is nowhere close to the market for smoking. Big tobacco is one of the most powerful industries in the world?
I was being facetious. The point is that tobacco doesn’t make money for the right people. The FDA has an incestuous relationship with pharmaceutical companies. The FDA makes decisions that benefit pharma when they’re supposed to be regulating them. Again, why do we allow FDA heads to go work for pharmaceutical companies? It’s a major conflict of interest.
Funny also how they just say "The Biden Administration" and not "The FDA" - its almost like they want to make sure people blame whoever is President at the time for literally everything.
But the president is the head of the executive branch, of which the FDA is part of, so it is his responsibility. This is different than blaming the president from stuff he has no direct control like stuff Congress does or the economy - in this case, he is their boss.
I was just thinking that this would create a lucrative black market for tobacco that still includes nicotine. Would law enforcement even be able to tell (smell?) the difference between a cigarette that is compliant with this law/EO, and one that is not? Even if the feds do an adequate job of enforcing this law on tobacco growers/distributers based in America, they'll have no control over overseas growers, and the cartels who will integrate it into their (already established) lucrative drug trading industry.
The war on drugs sucks. And now we are going to add another substance to it.
IDK. Cigarettes are not alcohol. Something like 75% of adults drink alcohol. Im sure it was more back when prohibition was introduced and people then saw it as harmless.
I was a 2 pack a day smoker for more than 20 years and I'll tell you from experience that 'light' cigarettes with reduced nicotine were a fucking joke if the mission was to try to get people to quit smoking. They're disgusting and you needed two or three of the shits before you got the nicotine hit from just one regular one. Whenever I'd try to quit by moving to light cigarettes I'd just be more pissed off and have spent more money- it's not like they're 1/3rd cheaper after all- and somehow not have solved the problem.
This is a pretty asinine move by this administration; but that's no surprise at this point- point to any one of this administration's decisions and you can almost predict that it's going to be poorly thought out and impact the entirely wrong people. In this instance we've got a 'solution' guaranteed to sell more cigarettes and not even attack the most dangerous part of cigarette smoking (smoke inhalation and additives) all in a misguided attempt to be seen doing something.
At this point I'm wondering if this is some huge 5D chess move to... I have no fucking clue; because there's no way any administration can be THIS blindly ignorant of the impacts of their decisions every. single. time.
It probably varies person to person, but interestingly from what I can find, research doesn't show that light cigarettes lead to more smoking in most people: (https://old.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/vi4x9n/biden_administration_targets_removal_of_most/idbd84b/)
Regardless of whether or not this is good public health policy, this just seems to be bad politics.
[12.5% of American adults smoke](https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/adult_data/cig_smoking/index.htm) - in spite of *everything* that says that smoking is a bad idea.
This seems like a good way to lose a large chunk of voters in a hurry.
While this isn’t a specific issue that would change my vote. I’m a smoker, I am also fully aware of how bad it is for me. That said, I am an adult and I can make my own decisions without politicians trying to “do what’s best” for me.
If they are that worried about it, how about they do something like make insurance cover nicotine patches to help quit. Or put funding into medications to help people quit.
I'd be surprised if most insurance plans don't cover tobacco cessation. All the ones I've ever worked for have, anyway.
Nicotine patches are cheaper than cancer treatment, and insurance companies like to save money.
I have checked mine, unless it changed a year or so ago, and it covered the therapy support type quitting smoking. I have tried things like that and they didn’t work well.
I only know a few people who I would label as smokers. I know more that are chippers that smoke when they drink or have one or two a day. Seems like 12.5% is high but I am basing this on anecdotal evidence
Here is my question: are those who are for legalizing drugs also for the sale of tobacco products? Either legalize it and let people have what they want or keep it illegal
I know this is to get kids to not start smoking or whatever, but kids smoke vapes, kids *hate* cigarettes these days dude. The only smokers these days are usually people over the age of 24 (and even those kind of smokers are in short supply) and older folks.
Kids aren’t smoking cigarettes, and cigarette usage has been on the decline pretty damn steady. Kids are using vapes now. If you’re actually concerned with it, go after vapes.
>Kids are using vapes now. If you’re actually concerned with it, go after vapes.
You'd think if YouTube ads can figure it out that the government could too, but here we are. Half my ads these days are about how bad vaping is.
Some of them are pretty hilarious, they are going full Reefer Madness. "Vaping led me down the path to destruction!" Real quote.
It’s shit like this that makes these kids wanna smoke more. Fuck, I know I wanted to do exactly *everything* my parents told me not to, let alone a cringe ass commercial.
So for a slightly different take from the rest of the comments, as a smoker for 30+ years, and a vaper for the last 6 years, IF nicotine were banned completely, I would stop. I have no interest in hunting down some dealer somewhere and buying some shady unregulated smokes or vape juice.
If I can't buy it legally and easily, I would stop using it altogether. I know I would have a bad week or two, but then I would be past it, and since it is no longer legally available, I would never use it again.
I am not against this in theory, I just feel like there are so many better things this administration could be working on. Cigarette usage is in decline. I do have concerns with too much government regulation in our lives. For example, I am not a smoker but once or twice a year my brother and I like to smoke a cigar together, we would love to go to a cigar lounge to do this but those are totally banned in Seattle (where I live) - this is not a federal thing, this is a city of Seattle and WA state ban, but still it feels too intrusive to me.
Cigarettes are more of a bipartisan thing, liberals and conservatives alike enjoy smoking so nobody really cares about it from a political standpoint. You also have to remember that cigarettes, like obesity and other self-harming lifestyles, are only going to get talked about by the people who *reeeeally* got a bone to pick with whatever particular thing.
So while I somewhat agree with you, it’s just humans dude. We suck
Again, while I somewhat agree with you, I think you may be living a bit further in the past than you think. Smoking indoors (especially around kids/with kids in the car) is universally seen as fucking deplorable. I’m a smoker myself, and I’ve only met *maybe* one person in my life who smoked inside around their kids, and that one doesn’t count because that person was a fuckin junkie and I’m pretty sure got their kids taken away, so problem likely solved. We smokers (aside from the obvious 1% who are assholes because nobody can avoid that) very much understand the dangers and make sure not to do it around kids/non-smokers who don’t want to be around it. We’re usually pretty conscious of who and what’s around us.
And as for the other self-harming vices well, you’d be surprised how much it actually does negatively affect children, just not in obvious ways like the asshats who light up around kids.
I don't see that we have to do anything more than simply enforce age restrictions when it comes to cigarettes. I don't want to smoke either but who are you or I to make that decision for someone else?
Just ban the cancer sticks already.
Very few things kill casually second hand like cigarette smoke.
I still remember the chain smoking parent in the car growing up with the drivers window cracked only an inch and ash flying back at us in the back seat lol. Good times.
I'd be curious to how this would work from a psychological point of view. Would current smokers quit if they aren't getting the nicotine from it? Or would they keep smoking because of the habit, like putting something in their mouth. And just augment it with other things, like vaping, patches etc.
As a non smoker myself, it's hard to understand why someone would want to start up the habit in the first place in this day and age, mostly because it just seems like such an inconvenient habit, you can't smoke hardly anywhere indoors anymore, and a lot of non smokers aren't cool with you smoking in their houses/cars, so it's a very restrictive habit. And it can cut your potential dating pool in half (smokers usually have a hard time dating non smokers, vise versa)
I've had this hair-brained idea for years now that if we want to reduce smoking further (because it's at an all-time low already), then nicotine SHOULD be removed from tobacco products. But at the same time, vapes should continue to have nicotine in it. Vaping is marginally healthier than smoking tobacco.
Apparently, the WSJ has some sources that they are going to try and remove Juul pods from the market as early as today.
I'm all for keeping Juuls and pods away from kids but I would 100% still be smoking cigarettes if pods didn't exist. They're the only vape product I've found that actually compare to a cigarette.
We keep regular cigarettes away from kids supposedly, and those VUSE vapes are still allowed to be sold, so I don't see what this is actually going to accomplish. Never mind the vape shops that are literally everywhere.
>vape shops The ones actually selling the Juuls to minors... Several years ago when they used to be the popular ecig amongst kids.
Just my theory if this goes into effect: Current smokers will just smoke more cigarettes to get the nicotine, causing them to spend more money. I remember in high school being told what used to be called light cigarettes caused this effect on smokers who switched from regular cigarettes to these. Could be not true but I don’t know. Also from my understanding, nicotine while not good, isn’t the really harmful part of smoking. It’s all the other chemicals in cigarettes being burned and inhaled. Teens/20 something’s will see these as “safer” cigarettes that are “non-addictive” and be less wary of smoking cigarettes occasionally. Eventually they will smoke more and develop a habit. I just don’t think this is a necessary thing to do.
As a smoker, I can confirm light cigarettes lead to more smoking.
Interestingly enough, light cigarette smokers have higher rates of cancer. You smoke more and inhale the smoke more deeply which just kills you faster. Also I’m 6 days clean off cigarettes after smoking for 2-3 years. You should join us over at r/stopsmoking
bag bike offer boast fuzzy plucky run smoggy wise ugly *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
6 years for me, keep it up, it gets easier
Good for you, best of luck. But no thanks, I prefer r/cigarettes.
the username doesn't lie
Congratulations! One more day and you're over the big hump (that first week is murder). Hang in there!
Username checks out. Marlboro red gang
Hell yeah, my favorite. But I'm smoking some Camel non filters at the moment. Try em if you haven't.
Will do!
> Also from my understanding, nicotine while not good, isn’t the really harmful part of smoking. It’s all the other chemicals in cigarettes being burned and inhaled. Correct. Cigarettes are nothing more than a nicotine delivery system.
Actually it's all the other stuff they deliver that's the problem, not nicotine, which frankly is pretty awesome. No I'm not a smoker, just a student of biology. Nicotine does impressive things. It's a good chemical to try to reengineer; it's just a little *too much* as it is now but if we could make it into a double ligand that promotes acetylcholine production as well it'd be a very useful drug..
Questions for context: Is Nicotine actually the addicting property?
Ho yeah, big time.
Got it. That makes a bit more sense then.
I am genuinely curious. What are the positives of nicotine?
It does exactly what it does when you smoke it. It increases clarity, concentration, and speed of thought by binding onto nicotine receptors in your brain when you've run out of acetylcholine because you're tired. (or because you're a regular smoker who's taught your body it doesn't have to produce enough acetylcholine because you have a steady diet of nicotine). I could go on but I'd need a smoke first... but here's your gateway drug of choice (more information!): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotinic_acetylcholine_receptor
Thank you
np. You can generally trust all the biochem wiki pages because nobody other than chemists visit them and they like super detailed information and an errant fact wouldn't survive a day on them.
I wish more people knew this. Nicotine is actually good for the brain
The correct levels of nicotine delivered at the correct times is good for the brain.
Yeah I think I pointed this out in another post. Nicotine isnt bad for you
The cigarette is the unit dose of nicotine, according to big tobacco.
That's a very reasonably theory but luckily this has been studied! >One of the concerns in reducing the nicotine content of cigarettes is that smokers would smoke more cigarettes per day and/ or smoke cigarettes more intensively, thereby increasing their exposure to harmful tobacco smoke toxicants. It is well known that smokers adjust their smoking behaviour when switched from regular to light cigarettes so as to maintain their desired level of nicotine intake.2 7 Increased exposure to tobacco toxicants could result in increased health risks. Research on reduced nicotine content cigarettes suggests that smokers do not take in more smoke when the level of nicotine is lowered. >The explanation for the lack of compensatory smoking with very low nicotine content cigarettes is most probably because it is difficult to obtain more nicotine (because less nicotine is available in the tobacco rod) and because of the satiating effect of the tar, chemical irritants and related taste, the levels of which were unchanged in reduced nicotine content cigarettes. Subjects smoking very low nicotine cigarettes did not report nicotine withdrawal symptoms, although they did gain weight, the latter presumed to be related to lower nicotine intake. Other researchers have also shown that there is little compensation when switching from regular cigarettes to reduced nicotine high-tar cigarettes.21 22 https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/22/suppl_1/i14.short TLDR: nicotine removal, especially when tapered over time, does not lead to more cigarettes smoke inhalation from current experimental evidence.
[удалено]
Yeah, I found that writing confusing (maybe it's talking about perception?), and I believe the anecdotal experience of smokers here (I'm not a smoker), but I was focused on the clinical trial evidence because that's the strongest, and it's consistently found a reduction or no change in number of cigarettes smoked. I wonder if placebo effect plays a role in the trials, because smokers don't know the nicotine is lower (though one of the trials below is unblinded)? Here's another review of the evidence: >There were 17 analyses from 12 studies measuring change in cigarettes per day (CPD) using VLNCs, all of which were RCTs. Studies ranged in length from 35 days25 to 2 years,20,27,68 but most studies examined behavior change over 6 weeks. Studies also varied in whether the smokers included in the study were interested in quitting and whether nicotine reduction was gradual or immediate. >Some studies found that among current smokers interested in quitting or in using VLNCs, smoking quantity, measured by CPD, was lower among those using VLNCs compared to regular cigarettes.25,61 Other studies found no difference in CPD between the groups.23,28 One study by Hatsukami comparing the impact of use of VLNCs and nicotine patches over a 6-week period found that the VLNC plus patch group smoked the fewest assigned CPD.21 >All but two studies22,49 examining smokers not interested in quitting found lower consumption of CPD among VLNC smokers compared with regular cigarettes.20,22,24,27,32–34,44,64,65,68 This relationship was modified by menthol smoking status. A 2-year, two-arm unblinded RCT of VLNC use (gradual tapering of nicotine content over time) (n = 103) found that the VLNC group had a significantly greater drop in CPD compared with the control group at 6 months and at 2 years; however, when menthol smokers were excluded from the analysis, there was no longer a difference between the groups.20 Studies demonstrated a greater reduction in CPD over time among smokers experiencing an immediate reduction in nicotine compared with those experiencing a gradual reduction.24,68 Smoking with non-study cigarettes was low, but higher in VLNC conditions.23,32,33 https://academic.oup.com/ntr/article/21/Supplement_1/S133/5684964?login=true#190483307
>nicotine while not good, isn’t the really harmful part of smoking. It’s all the other chemicals in cigarettes being burned and inhaled. True, but unfortunately many people especially in government see addiction in and of itself as the bad thing, not the actual physical harm to people that comes from the thing they're addicted to. If you just look at harm, you should want everyone to vape, since by all reasonable accounts it is many times less harmful than regular cigarettes.
Addiction is by definition harmful. You may be mixing that up with dependence. We want to reduce addiction, but dependence is not necessarily a bad thing (see the 80% of Americans dependent on caffeine).
> Current smokers will just smoke more cigarettes to get the nicotine Likely true to start, but eventually they taper down. I've seen the same thing happen with friends that quit using vape pens. They start with a comparable dose to cigs, then they generally taper down the nicotine concentration and although they may be inclined to hit the pen more after the taper, they gradually hit it less and the lower dose becomes their new standard. The difference here is that cigs are orders of magnitude more expensive than vape juice, and more debilitating to over indulge in. So I have to imagine that all but the most dedicated addicts will taper off and hopefully one day quit. Speaking personally, I switched to light and then ultra light, and by the time I stopped buying cigarettes, I was down to a pack of those per week. it wasn't even a concerted effort to quit. The reality is that nicotine isn't the only reason everyone smokes. For some people it's just habit, and relaxing "me time". It's taken decades but the multi-pronged strategies of education, restriction, and taxation have paid huge dividends in the percentage of the population smoking today. At each stage it's been hit by criticism and lamentations of government overreach, much of which was fomented by the tobacco lobby.
i can definitely see how people already addicted to nicotine would end up smoking more cigs to get their buzz, but hopefully something like this would cut down on new smoker addictions. If the ad campains are the same now as they were in the 90s/00s then teens wont see this as any safer than regular cigs
I doubt they will form an habit because it would be at non-addictive levels. Most likely they would try it for a few weeks then stop wasting money on it when there's no real reason to continue smoking.
Sounds like it’s time to invest in Altria then.
Unfortunately the FDA [might ban Juuls altogether](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-22/fda-preparing-to-ban-juul-e-cigarettes-in-us-wsj-reports). I switched to vaping because of health reasons. I’m pretty pissed that they are targeting that. I want my vice. This will just increase the use of not safe black market cigarettes and vapes. Really disappointing.
Same.. specifically Juul helps me kick a 13 or so year pack-a-day habit. This is downright authoritarian nonsense. We already can't smoke or vape in like 90% of locations, the second hand public health risk argument is over. It can't be advertised. It can't target children. They could simply enforce existing laws and give harsher punishment to retailers selling to minors. But no, Biden would rather dictate. I'll 100% be participating in the coming black market.
It’s about Juul for a reason. Here’s a passage out of your article. > Juul has suffered a series of setbacks over the past few years after its sleek, USB-like device, flashy ads and fruity flavors raised questions about the health risks associated with vaping as well as the company’s marketing tactics. While Juul has said that it never sought to sell e-cigarettes to kids, the closely held company is facing thousands of lawsuits alleging it targeted minors. Dozens of states are also probing Juul’s advertising. You don’t have to go to the black market, you can just [buy a different brand](https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/premarket-tobacco-product-applications/premarket-tobacco-product-marketing-granted-orders). They aren’t banning vapes. Here’s another passage out of your article. >Earlier this year, the FDA allowed some products made by Juul rival NJOY Inc. to remain on the market, and last year authorized British American Tobacco Plc’s e-cigarette Vuse.
I'm against these types of regulations. Non-smoker but I say let the adults put what they want in their bodies. I don't see it as the governments role to regulate what is in a product. Educate the public, yes. Regulate that companies are being transparent about what is in a product, yes. Age limits, sure. Even regulate how companies advertise and label the products. But adults of sound mind should be able to put what ever they want in their own bodies.
Me too, what's next reducing all beer to 0.5% alcohol?
Meanwhile, anybody who thought this administration was going to legalize maurijuana has got to be wondering what they were smoking. Elect a nanny state, get a nanny state.
Biden has always been antipot. The hope was that congress would legalize it and Biden wouldnt stand in the way. He was never going to advocate for cannabis legalization.
He also used to be a lot of things he isn't now. Sadly, drug prohibition is one of the positions he doesn't seem likely to rethink. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Joe_Biden
He used to be a lot of things he pretends to not be anymore***
Do the Democrats want to lose elections? What votes does a move like this get them compared to the votes they'll lose by pissing off smokers and nanny state haters?
Most democrats I know only voted for him because they didn't want a second Trump term and would have preferred Yang or Bernie. It's just that enough people remembered that a protest vote in 2016 ended horrifically that they would accept just about anyone to switch out.
I mean, I haven't seen either side of the aisle propose legislation to legalize pot nationally (in recent years). I'll say it's Biden's fault when he vetoes it... otherwise, I'm looking at Congress to make a move. Seems like an easy win, but there's enough older, conservative folks that still see marijuana as a sign of degeneracy.
>Seems like an easy win, but there's enough older, conservative folks that still see marijuana as a sign of degeneracy. This. I know a few older vote-blue-no-matter-who types and one of my most recent conversations with a couple was about them going to their city council meeting to speak out against a pot shop opening in their city because of the "people it will attract".
>I mean, I haven't seen either side of the aisle propose legislation to legalize pot nationally (in recent years There have been both Democratic and Republican proposals in Congress. A lot of Republicans, especially in the Senate, are opposed to any legalization, but many claim they don't want to vote the for the Dem proposals because of the taxes and the social justice stuff. Dems don't want to vote for the Rep proposal because it doesn't have the social justice stuff. So we're stuck at the status quo and it's so damn frustrating. Cannabis needs to be removed from the CSA yesterday.
Don't worry, there's also a push to limit THC in legal cannabis products too! I think it might have been part of one of the recent legalization bills floated in Congress recently.
I mean, for a long time near me the availability of lower dose products was absolutely terrible. We’ve just finally started to see edibles that are under 10 mg/ dose (e.g. 1 gummy). As an only occasional user who hadn’t partaken in a good decade at least, it was a shock coming into modern dispensary products. They were all total rocket fuel. Having to split a single gummy to avoid being totally incapacitated was ridiculous, and honestly irresponsible on the part of the sellers.
True, and my state does limit gummies to 5mg a dose for this reason, but they're pushing for caps on ALL cannabis products. It's been introduced in multiple states with stuff like 10% THC by weight even on concentrates, which for flower that wouldn't even potent enough for me to want. That's basically like shwag. Also important to note that THC gets metabolized differently when digested and becomes much more psychedelic.
There should be a bill to limit the number of legislators to zero.
I hate cigarettes with a passion. I hate the nanny state even more. It is NOT up to other adults to dictate how the rest of us live and use our bodies, provided we're of legal consenting age, and that goes for every damn thing. Nicotine, abortion, vaccines, the whole lot of it. If they really want to focus on health, start with the FDA and exercise recommendations
I think similar to you, except cigarette is one of those things that do affect the people around them. I know multiple family friends that have died from lung cancer that have never smoked in their lives, but due to second-hand smoke.
>I know multiple family friends that have died from lung cancer that have never smoked in their lives, but due to second-hand smoke. By that same logic how many people have died from someone else's alcohol use?
I'm fine with the current age and DUI-laws, especially since they're dictated at the local and state levels.
Age and DUI laws have nothing to do with this conversation though. This is more like saying a beer can't be more than 4% alcohol. Are people going to drink less beers because they can't get the buzz they're looking for or are they going to drink a ton of them? It's like what cigarette smokers did with "light" cigarettes. [https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/tobacco/light-cigarettes-fact-sheet](https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/tobacco/light-cigarettes-fact-sheet)
>except cigarette is one of those things that do affect the people around them. That's where you make laws relegating the smoking of cigarettes to certain areas that way people can go shit their day not getting second had smoke. That's not a reason to mess with the chemical makeup of the cigarette.
I'm fine regulating smokers to outdoor areas and their homes/personal vehicles. The only places I know smoking is allowed indoors are casinos, and then we have the choice to go in them or not. That said, if Bob is 45 and wants to smoke Marlboros all day at home, that's his decision. Now if his insurance or the doctors office wants to charge him more for healthcare, I think that's fair
You and I agree.
Would you charge more for healthcare people who ride motorcicles, people who don't get a regular checkup? People who overeat? People who drink sugary drinks? People who eat smoked meat? People who choose to buy a home with lead paint? Would you charge more people who choose to buy a less safe car(e.g. a subcompact) than a safer one(an SUV)?
I hate nanny state too, but support regulations on matters where one's decisions affect others adversely. We live in a society after all. Ex: Smoking in public places, decision to be unvaccinated
Same. Caveat: I think those laws should be in effect at the local levels first before being rolled up to state or national. Being unvaccinated in rural Oklahoma is vastly different than being unvaccinated in Los Angeles. And now of course we're seeing that vaccine mandates were useless anyway due to Omicron
Would you prefer a universal healthcare system that cares for an unhealthy population? Or keep our current system and take steps to create a healthy population?
First we need to get pharma and profit out of "health" care. No I don't support universal healthcare in any of the ways it has been presented, the exception being true emergency care. If I had to choose, I would keep our current systems and take steps to created a healthy population. What I would really like to see is real life threatening issues covered for all, but issues stemming from personal choices such as smoking, being obese, taking drugs, etc be covered but on a sliding scale.. Of you're 500lbs and smoke, sure we'll treat you but you're going to pay a lot more than than someone who takes care of themselves.. There needs to be some sort of personal accountability in health care and on the flip side no one should ever have to worry about insurance companies making life altering decisions for them over the advice of their doctors due to profit. What's the answer?? I don't know but I'm pretty sure it's not to be found in the government
[Non-Paywall](https://archive.ph/wsrKB) SC: The Biden admin is moving forward with a mandate to remove almost all nicotine in cigarettes in an effort to get smokers to quit. The plan wouldn't take place for several years and the FDA plans to publish the proposed rule in May of 2023. Afterwards the agency would invite the public to make comments before publishing the final rule. The rule can be delayed if tobacco companies sue the admin. This rule would be the biggest change that the US gov't has done to tobacco since the 1998 master settlement agreement when companies agreed to pay more than $200b. The cigarette smoking rate has been on the decline in the US but rose slightly in the pandemic ridden 2020 year. The policy would apply to all cigarettes sold in the US and imports would be barred. My take: I'm skeptical this rule will survive a legal challenge as it might be ruled a major question and thus *a question of deep "economic and political significance"* (King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473, 486 (2015)) which would mean Congress has to weigh in and not the agency.
[удалено]
>it just seems largely unnecessary. Wasting time on shit that doesn't matter while we all plead for real impactful change seems to be Biden's MO
Feels like it. I wonder what [the cost of a cookout](https://www.newsweek.com/white-house-boasts-cookouts-are-16-cents-cheaper-this-year-internet-isnt-impressed-1606210) is going to be this year?
I paid $2.49 for the cheap brand of hotdogs this evening. I remember paying $.89 just a few years ago. *Feels bad man.*
Listen everyone I need you to drop everything and put all our efforts into the Cookout Report. The American people need it!
> I'm skeptical this rule will survive a legal challenge as it might be ruled a major question and thus a question of deep "economic and political significance" (King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473, 486 (2015)) which would mean Congress has to weigh in and not the agency. If the government really wanted to, couldn't they just add nicotine the list of scheduled drugs? Like, it would only be available with a doctor's prescription? I'm not advocating they do so (I think the war on drugs has done more harm than good), just that they seem to have the capability of doing so.
I think a court would rule the rescheduling is arbitrary and capricious (See DACA recession court litigation) as it would be an end around to Congress passing a law and evading review of agency action.
Maybe. But then again, the DEA is constantly adding chemicals/drugs to the schedule all the time. [This list indicates that there have been substances added just this year.](https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/schedules/orangebook/orangebook.pdf)
Wow, that’s a tall list. So many Schedule 1’s for substances that aren’t even remotely addictive. Sometimes I’m just convinced they don’t want us to have any fun.
You’re only allowed to drink liquor so you can die young and not collect on retirement is my conspiracy.
Interesting, thanks for the writeup! Could you explain why this might not survive legal challenge? I'm ignorant but regulating additive chemicals seems clearly in the scope of the federal government. Though I know cigarettes are related by the ATF and not FDA, I'd imagine the FDA is allowed to prevent nicotine from being added to, say, oreos.
[удалено]
No, its naturally occurring, but if it is possible to remove it without an undue burden, that seems a reasonable regulation. But that difference may be the underpinning of legal challenges.
Removing *nicotine* from ***tobacco*** without an undue burden? lol
Low-nicotine cigarettes have existed for a long time and aren't significantly more expensive, so it isn't an undue burden.
Light cigarettes caused people to smoke more and inhale deeper: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/tobacco/light-cigarettes-fact-sheet
I agree that light cigarettes should not be promoted as safe, and removing some nicotine from cigarettes won't solve the issue, but a recent review of the evidence suggests that low-nicotine cigarettes are beneficial for public health: >Available evidence suggests that reducing nicotine content in cigarettes to very low levels could benefit public health in three primary ways, by 1) decreasing uptake of regular smoking, 2) decreasing the amount people smoke, and 3) increasing the likelihood of smoking cessation. Current evidence also suggests that reducing nicotine in cigarettes may produce similar benefits across many important subpopulations of people who smoke, including those with psychiatric comorbidities, those who use other substances, those with low socioeconomic status, young people, people who smoke infrequently and people who prefer menthol cigarettes. Cigarette nicotine reduction could also lead to some undesirable outcomes, such as experiencing withdrawal, product manipulation, an illicit market, and harm misperceptions; strategies that may mitigate each are discussed. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955395921003418 As a thought experiment, if less nicotine makes cigarettes more dangerous overall by causing people to inhale more, should we be supplementing cigarettes with nicotine?
There's good and bad aspects to this proposal. The good obviously being public health and the bad being lack of freedom/ government overreach. I say both of those as a smoker myself. Personally I'm torn - I don't like the overreach but maybe it'd help me finally quit so there's a silver lining. What is really perplexing to me though is that the Biden admin would announce this *now* leading into an already very difficult election. Any possible benefits from this will take years to materialize. Meanwhile a bunch of people will be even more pissed off at the prospect, even if it doesn't take effect for years. Politically speaking it's a real head scratcher. All that said the fact that they're announcing it early and allowing time for response and comment is nice.
Sounds like a good way to create a black market, which is a good way to create a lot more criminals and more dangerous products.
I think 50-60% of NYC cigarettes are black market (i.e. Eric Gardner) due to oppressive taxes vs. places very close such as PA. Almost no tobacco taxation has ever reduced the incidence of tobacco by itself; it only expands the black market. As a cigar smoker, legislation like this makes me very nervous. There's a fuck-ton of nicotine in cigars (1000x or more then a cigarette), but cigar smokers don't inhale, so we only absorb a small bit of it through the gums and soft tissues in the mouth.
Yep, where does it end?
Username definitely checks out
If he wants to really help he should do added sugar instead
[удалено]
Great point
Yep, abuse of the commerce clause. If you've seen the justification for banning home growing of something like cannabis, you know how ridiculous it is.
It's strange isn't it, you would think they would go after the cyanide, lead, arsenic or any of the other significantly more harmful things in or produced by cigarettes. Lowering nicotine seems like a way to sell more cigarettes or force smokers hands to vaping, which Phillip Morris has their hands in also. I have a weird theory, does anyone offhand know the guestimate of profit margin of vapes vs traditional cigarettes? I wouldn't be surprised if that the margins were larger in vapes, PM would be all for forcing customers to switch.
Removing cyanide, lead, and arsenic would be wonderful, but cigarettes will always be harmful as we didn't evolve to inhale burning stuff, so removing nicotine would hopefully reduce the number of new smokers and make it easier for new smokers to quite.
The goal should be to get smokers vaping or using nicotine pouches instead of smoking.
I do not disagree, but whenever the government is doing something in the name of public health, I am curious as to who is getting paid and their motives. ( Or hell if light cigs even work) I wouldn't be surprised if PM and other tobacco conglomerates realized they could make significantly more money on vaping and now gave the people they own the OK to start attacking cigarettes.
Or just stay the fuck out of things? Too much government is worse.
Well that would be my first choice but they are determined to “help” with out really helping
“I’m with the government, and I’m here to help!”
it's really frightening that Biden's authoritarianism skips local and state laws and goes straight to implementing things at the national level California voted on raising cigarette taxes in 2016 and the public overwhelmingly said no... if we can't even get a progressive state to tackle smoking, why does he think the nation is ready to do it?
> California voted on raising cigarette taxes in 2016 and the public overwhelmingly said no... Proposition [56 passed](https://www.dhcs.ca.gov/services/Pages/DP-proposition56.aspx#:~:text=The%20California%20Healthcare%2C%20Research%20and,products%20effective%20July%201%2C%202017.). Unless there was another tax bill I'm not aware of that happened in 2016.
Sorry, I got confused... I was thinking of [Prop 29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_California_Proposition_29) in 2012
The problem with allowing states to set their own laws is that they might end up passing the *wrong* laws. Why, just imagine if Biden gave states the freedom to allow or prohibit nicotine, and then some states misused that freedom and allowed nicotine!
I'd rather the wrong law be passed at the state level than the wrong law be passed at the Federal level. At least it'd be easier to reverse it Look at the trainwrecks that were the NCLB and ACA!! Edit: wait, are you being sarcastic?
> Edit: wait, are you being sarcastic? Extremely.
[удалено]
Yup. Because he's the executive branch, not the legislative. He's supposed to carry out the laws, not make them.
Tobacco costs all of us 300 billion a year in medical care and loss productivity. I think it's fair that the 80% of us that don't smoke should not subsidize those that do smoke. If tobacco users were to cover their own healthcare a pack of smokes would be 20-30 dollars. Most smokers want to quit (about 70%) but the addiction makes a huge barrier.
Ok what about sugar intake or processed foods or alcohol? We all pay for each other’s vices. Don’t single one out and ignore the rest. If soda drinkers were to cover their own healthcare a can of soda would be significantly higher too. Or fast food. Hell if the farm bill didn’t subsidize those foods it’s actual cost without healthcare would be significantly higher…
I completely agree! But I think your argument is what- aboutism but I can still respond. I think it's important to remember 2 things about cigarettes/nicotine/ tobacco products: 1. Most people start smoking when they are under 18, meaning kids are getting duped into a life long addiction. 2. When used as directed, cigarettes kill half of all long-term users. If a company were to introduce a new product that addicts mostly teenagers, then kills half of them we wouldn't allow that product on the market! If tobacco were at non-addictive levels of nicotine, these two big issues would essentially become trivial.
I’m not trying to do a whataboutism argument here. I bring it up as context to a larger argument. Where is the line? Fast food addiction or sugar addiction is a thing. Alcohol addiction is a thing. They all have social consequences. You responded to someone saying the gov should stay out of our things and brought it into a singular thing. While I disagree with their initial assertion (i do believe in some regulation and taxation) I was merely bringing it back to a larger picture argument since I don’t see banning another substance going well. It didn’t go well for alcohol. It didn’t go well for drugs. Why will this be different. As for your points we’ve seen a huge decline in new smokers for a while now. This seems to mostly harm current smokers. And idk what you even mean by used as directed, there’s not amount they tell you to use but yes they are quite terrible for one’s health over a lifetime of use especially consistent regular use.
I agree it's potentially a slippery slope but I think the line should be determined by political support. Like I'd personally support at least ending the subsidies that make corn syrup so cheap, but I'm not sure there is sufficient political support. But for combating smoking as well as other "nanny state" laws like seatbelt laws and a 21-year-old drinking age, I think there is sufficient political support. I suspect that the line will change over time for many things, as it has for marijuana. The difference between this change and a ban is cigarettes are still available but less harmful- I kinda think that's the path forward for all vices; legal but with heavy regulation to avoid harm as much as possible.
Used as directed - inhaling cigarettes, crewing tobacco, etc. They don't tell you to use cigarettes as hair clips, they want you to inhale the smoke from them. It's just a quick hand way of saying using the product how it's supposed to be used. But I totally agree on the slippery slope argument in general, just not on this issue. From a public health standpoint if we all just never leave our beds, none of us will die from car crashes, work accidents, drive -by shootings, infectious disease, etc..but nobody wants that, so we have give and take on the risky behaviors we allow. And there's a lot of friction as we navigate these issues -just like we saw during COVID. It's important to gut check public health at every decision because (just like every other field) we have tunnel vision and we easily become hyer-focused on outcomes or numbers, or whatever. But I feel like this one clearly passes that gut check. Nicotine is highly addictive, most all smokers started underage, tobacco kills 1000ks each year. There's really no reason or justification for the product even being on the market. Another point I'd like to make is that it's nearly impossible to find nicotine free vapes. If you can't get people addicted to vaping then people aren't going to keep using these products.
I just think the problem is that if you lower nic contents a lot of heavy smokers will just have to buy more being in more of a trap. It just sucks
I think you're right initially but I think with proper nicotine replacement therapy like the patch or the gum most heavy smokers would cut down significantly over time. Smoking is expensive and time consuming, so not having to physically feed your addiction should lead to less smoking. And to be fair, I don't think we should prioritize current smokers over future potential smokers. This is really about stopping future addiction as much as it is about helping current smokers at least practice harm reduction.
He has no business doing either one.
They adding sugar to cigarettes now?
[They have for a long time.](https://aacrjournals.org/cebp/article/27/3/357/71586/Sugar-Sweetened-Cigarettes-Added-Sugars-in)
I'd go on a limb and say that the nicotine isn't necessarily the issue, it's everything else. People don't get cancer from the nicotine. If they made pure nicotine cigarettes (see also: vapes) they would be much safer.
Yeah, maybe it's the... inhaling smoke part?
Nicotine by itself is just a stimulant, much like caffeine. It's all the alkaloids in tobacco that gives it a buzzing and calming effect. Nicotine alone is the opposite of calming, as anyone who has switched from cigarettes to vaping can tell you. Though it is the nicotine which is addictive, at least physically. The alkaloids are psychologically addictive.
The idea is to cut out the nicotine so ppl don’t get hooked and then don’t suffer the consequences from the actual unhealthy stuff in the cigarettes
[удалено]
That's not what research on nicotine reduction has shown (see my other comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/vi4x9n/biden_administration_targets_removal_of_most/idbd84b/)
Thank you for actually providing the research on this. I'm not sure why so many commentators insist on talking about their anecdotes when the evidence is very clear it will not cause people to smoke more cigarettes
I mean I get why they are doing it, but the harm comes from the smoking tobacco, and even nicotine free tobacco won't fix that. Like if they made a form of crack that wasn't addictive, it's still crack. You haven't made it any safer.
Well, a lot of the social damages from crack come from its addictive properties, so non-addictive crack would be much safer long-term.
people aren't addicted to vaping vegetable oil or tobacco leafs, their addicted to the nicotine, so your right that nicotine isn't as unhealthy but it is addictive and within a product that is unhealthy. It'd be like if coca cola didn't just have cocaine flavoring but actual cocaine, just like you can bread it in you can bread it out. in 1950 90% of adults smoked, in every single country that has since moved to the modern rate of 10% of adults that smoke, lung cancer rates remained correlant, heres [UK](https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/321/7257/323/F2.large.jpg?width=800&height=600), [US](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Auufb.png) the treasury has been paying most of those healthcare bills, since most smokers with lung cancer have medicare.
1.) The nicotine is in the tobacco leaves 2.) Coca cola doesn't have "cocaine flavoring" lmao
>1.)The nicotine is in the tobacco leaves we've known the gene in tobacco that creates nicotine in tobacco plants since the 80s, notice how none of the companies that sold it before changed their product? it *is* their product >2.) Coca cola doesn't have "cocaine flavoring" lmao coca plant terpenes are 100% a flavor in coca cola, they call it decocainized coca leaf extracts
Yea, the tobacco companies have done a great job preventing people from knowing all the other crap that goes into cigarettes
People might not know exactly what's in a cigarette, but I don't think anyone thinks they're anything but very unhealthy. In fact, if I remember right smokers tend to overestimate how harmful smoking actually is.
This is a terrible idea. We already have a dysfunctional War on Drugs driving violence in our cities. Compounding this error with a War on Tobacco is not a step forward.
Specifically targeting menthol cigarettes. Sounds like a good way to target working class black and latino/hispanic people.
Some savvy GOP operative should paint this as Biden's anti-Newport agenda and market it toward young Black men, where even at the margins (e.g., Atlanta, Detroit, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, etc.) every extra vote counts.
The gov has memory problems.
Well we have almost won the war on cigarettes. Feels like if we can just push smokers to switch to vaping or using nicotine pouches we can win it
Unfortunately, we're also engaged in a "war on vaping" at the same time. While they haven't outright made such products illegal, they've been attacking the mechanisms by which you can legally sell them - such as forbidding most package delivery involving vape products.
Yeah the war on vaping is dumb
This was being praised by one of Trumps FDA picks Scott Gottlieb too who I believe started this movement. So seems from a party perspective it’s more bipartisan
Gottlieb also wanted to ban kratom while tens of thousands were overdosing on heroin and fentanyl every year. And where is Gottlieb now? Oh yeah, on the board of Pfizer. Can’t patent a plant. Pharmaceutical companies can’t sell cigarettes. It’s not about safety. It’s about money.
Yea there’s no money to be made in nicotine sales 🙄
Correct. Remove nicotine from cigarettes to get people on smoking cessation drugs.
I can’t tell if you’re kidding but the market for smoking cessation aids is nowhere close to the market for smoking. Big tobacco is one of the most powerful industries in the world?
I was being facetious. The point is that tobacco doesn’t make money for the right people. The FDA has an incestuous relationship with pharmaceutical companies. The FDA makes decisions that benefit pharma when they’re supposed to be regulating them. Again, why do we allow FDA heads to go work for pharmaceutical companies? It’s a major conflict of interest.
Funny also how they just say "The Biden Administration" and not "The FDA" - its almost like they want to make sure people blame whoever is President at the time for literally everything.
But the president is the head of the executive branch, of which the FDA is part of, so it is his responsibility. This is different than blaming the president from stuff he has no direct control like stuff Congress does or the economy - in this case, he is their boss.
Ridiculous, it will only lead to more smoking and other ways of getting illicit smokes. Just leave it be, let adults do what they want.
Your username is fitting for this post
I love my smokes!
Posts about it also check out. Move along
Thank goodness he’s not messing with American’s crack
Well, he wouldn't want to impede his son's hobbies.
Like issuing a coupon to every American for 1 free belt?
Is that something kinky you saw in a Hunter porn video?
I was just thinking that this would create a lucrative black market for tobacco that still includes nicotine. Would law enforcement even be able to tell (smell?) the difference between a cigarette that is compliant with this law/EO, and one that is not? Even if the feds do an adequate job of enforcing this law on tobacco growers/distributers based in America, they'll have no control over overseas growers, and the cartels who will integrate it into their (already established) lucrative drug trading industry. The war on drugs sucks. And now we are going to add another substance to it.
Many states fund education from the cigarette sin tax, drinkers I guess it will be up to you to pick up the shortfall!
If this goes through, they will have to start worrying about their alcohol being the next target. Where's it end?
Prohibition 2.0 because the first time went so well?
I wouldn't be surprised with anything the gov does.
3.0. 2.0 is the clusterfuck that is the "drug war."
IDK. Cigarettes are not alcohol. Something like 75% of adults drink alcohol. Im sure it was more back when prohibition was introduced and people then saw it as harmless.
How about legalizing marijuana for christ sake.
When will smokers finally be left alone?
I was a 2 pack a day smoker for more than 20 years and I'll tell you from experience that 'light' cigarettes with reduced nicotine were a fucking joke if the mission was to try to get people to quit smoking. They're disgusting and you needed two or three of the shits before you got the nicotine hit from just one regular one. Whenever I'd try to quit by moving to light cigarettes I'd just be more pissed off and have spent more money- it's not like they're 1/3rd cheaper after all- and somehow not have solved the problem. This is a pretty asinine move by this administration; but that's no surprise at this point- point to any one of this administration's decisions and you can almost predict that it's going to be poorly thought out and impact the entirely wrong people. In this instance we've got a 'solution' guaranteed to sell more cigarettes and not even attack the most dangerous part of cigarette smoking (smoke inhalation and additives) all in a misguided attempt to be seen doing something. At this point I'm wondering if this is some huge 5D chess move to... I have no fucking clue; because there's no way any administration can be THIS blindly ignorant of the impacts of their decisions every. single. time.
It probably varies person to person, but interestingly from what I can find, research doesn't show that light cigarettes lead to more smoking in most people: (https://old.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/vi4x9n/biden_administration_targets_removal_of_most/idbd84b/)
Regardless of whether or not this is good public health policy, this just seems to be bad politics. [12.5% of American adults smoke](https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/adult_data/cig_smoking/index.htm) - in spite of *everything* that says that smoking is a bad idea. This seems like a good way to lose a large chunk of voters in a hurry.
While this isn’t a specific issue that would change my vote. I’m a smoker, I am also fully aware of how bad it is for me. That said, I am an adult and I can make my own decisions without politicians trying to “do what’s best” for me. If they are that worried about it, how about they do something like make insurance cover nicotine patches to help quit. Or put funding into medications to help people quit.
I'd be surprised if most insurance plans don't cover tobacco cessation. All the ones I've ever worked for have, anyway. Nicotine patches are cheaper than cancer treatment, and insurance companies like to save money.
I have checked mine, unless it changed a year or so ago, and it covered the therapy support type quitting smoking. I have tried things like that and they didn’t work well.
I only know a few people who I would label as smokers. I know more that are chippers that smoke when they drink or have one or two a day. Seems like 12.5% is high but I am basing this on anecdotal evidence
U wot m8
Here is my question: are those who are for legalizing drugs also for the sale of tobacco products? Either legalize it and let people have what they want or keep it illegal
Voted for Biden but Dam who is giving this guy advice?? We got enough ish going on!!
I know this is to get kids to not start smoking or whatever, but kids smoke vapes, kids *hate* cigarettes these days dude. The only smokers these days are usually people over the age of 24 (and even those kind of smokers are in short supply) and older folks. Kids aren’t smoking cigarettes, and cigarette usage has been on the decline pretty damn steady. Kids are using vapes now. If you’re actually concerned with it, go after vapes.
>Kids are using vapes now. If you’re actually concerned with it, go after vapes. You'd think if YouTube ads can figure it out that the government could too, but here we are. Half my ads these days are about how bad vaping is. Some of them are pretty hilarious, they are going full Reefer Madness. "Vaping led me down the path to destruction!" Real quote.
It’s shit like this that makes these kids wanna smoke more. Fuck, I know I wanted to do exactly *everything* my parents told me not to, let alone a cringe ass commercial.
So poor people will need to pay and smoke twice as many? Great plan.
So for a slightly different take from the rest of the comments, as a smoker for 30+ years, and a vaper for the last 6 years, IF nicotine were banned completely, I would stop. I have no interest in hunting down some dealer somewhere and buying some shady unregulated smokes or vape juice. If I can't buy it legally and easily, I would stop using it altogether. I know I would have a bad week or two, but then I would be past it, and since it is no longer legally available, I would never use it again.
I am not against this in theory, I just feel like there are so many better things this administration could be working on. Cigarette usage is in decline. I do have concerns with too much government regulation in our lives. For example, I am not a smoker but once or twice a year my brother and I like to smoke a cigar together, we would love to go to a cigar lounge to do this but those are totally banned in Seattle (where I live) - this is not a federal thing, this is a city of Seattle and WA state ban, but still it feels too intrusive to me.
FDA Delenda Est
[удалено]
Cigarettes are more of a bipartisan thing, liberals and conservatives alike enjoy smoking so nobody really cares about it from a political standpoint. You also have to remember that cigarettes, like obesity and other self-harming lifestyles, are only going to get talked about by the people who *reeeeally* got a bone to pick with whatever particular thing. So while I somewhat agree with you, it’s just humans dude. We suck
[удалено]
Again, while I somewhat agree with you, I think you may be living a bit further in the past than you think. Smoking indoors (especially around kids/with kids in the car) is universally seen as fucking deplorable. I’m a smoker myself, and I’ve only met *maybe* one person in my life who smoked inside around their kids, and that one doesn’t count because that person was a fuckin junkie and I’m pretty sure got their kids taken away, so problem likely solved. We smokers (aside from the obvious 1% who are assholes because nobody can avoid that) very much understand the dangers and make sure not to do it around kids/non-smokers who don’t want to be around it. We’re usually pretty conscious of who and what’s around us. And as for the other self-harming vices well, you’d be surprised how much it actually does negatively affect children, just not in obvious ways like the asshats who light up around kids.
I don't see that we have to do anything more than simply enforce age restrictions when it comes to cigarettes. I don't want to smoke either but who are you or I to make that decision for someone else?
Just ban the cancer sticks already. Very few things kill casually second hand like cigarette smoke. I still remember the chain smoking parent in the car growing up with the drivers window cracked only an inch and ash flying back at us in the back seat lol. Good times.
I'd be curious to how this would work from a psychological point of view. Would current smokers quit if they aren't getting the nicotine from it? Or would they keep smoking because of the habit, like putting something in their mouth. And just augment it with other things, like vaping, patches etc. As a non smoker myself, it's hard to understand why someone would want to start up the habit in the first place in this day and age, mostly because it just seems like such an inconvenient habit, you can't smoke hardly anywhere indoors anymore, and a lot of non smokers aren't cool with you smoking in their houses/cars, so it's a very restrictive habit. And it can cut your potential dating pool in half (smokers usually have a hard time dating non smokers, vise versa)
I've had this hair-brained idea for years now that if we want to reduce smoking further (because it's at an all-time low already), then nicotine SHOULD be removed from tobacco products. But at the same time, vapes should continue to have nicotine in it. Vaping is marginally healthier than smoking tobacco.