New law for tobacco company's to lower nicotine levels in cigarettes

[Frezflops]

http://www.weau.com/content/news/FDA-begins-anti-smoking-push-to-cut-nicotine-in-cigarettes-476962053.html

Not sure if this will be effective as those who are addicted will just smoke and buy more which would drive profits up. What do you think?

Lisa

[Reciprocity]

I would think people will just smoke more cigs to get the same volume of nicotine - no? Those that are currently smoking anyway.

For those starting, maybe it will have some effect but I'm not really sure because won't you still get addicted even if there's a little nicotine in them? Doesn't make much sense to me.

[Sazerac]

I agree with you, Lisa.  I would have smoked more,  at any cost,  to keep my nicotine levels up

or made sure my addiction was satisfied with vape or another delivery system.

I am so glad to be away from the frenzy I put myself through.  gah !

What would  outlawing nicotine do ?  It would have made me me an outlaw and grow my own tobacco or buy it on the black market.

 

[Boo]

Looks like some bureaucratic busywork to me.  No real thought given to the nature of addiction and addicts.  Just shuffle some paperwork around, take a vote, and pat ourselves on the back for having done something.

 

"Regulators estimate about 5 million additional people would quit cigarettes within one year of the new nicotine limits."  I'm about 92.76% certain that number was pulled out of thin-air to make it look as though they actually did some research.  By my estimate, their estimate is little more than a fart in the wind.

[Doreensfree]

57 minutes ago, Boo said:

Looks like some bureaucratic busywork to me.  No real thought given to the nature of addiction and addicts.  Just shuffle some paperwork around, take a vote, and pat ourselves on the back for having done something.

 

"Regulators estimate about 5 million additional people would quit cigarettes within one year of the new nicotine limits."  I'm about 92.76% certain that number was pulled out of thin-air to make it look as though they actually did some research.  By my estimate, their estimate is little more than a fart in the wind.

So agree...

They have got to be seen doing something go help the poor addicted smokers......we don't want you to pack in really ,because of all the revenue..we will lose...

If they really want to help..plow the money into education..knowledge of addiction..

In my addicted years...I would have smoked more...which would mean giving the B*****s more of my hard earned cash !!!!

[Whispers]

2 hours ago, Frezflops said:

http://www.weau.com/content/news/FDA-begins-anti-smoking-push-to-cut-nicotine-in-cigarettes-476962053.html

Not sure if this will be effective as those who are addicted will just smoke and buy more which would drive profits up. What do you think?

Lisa

Totally agree lisa,   smoke more so it makes up for the lack of nicotine. Higher profits for tobacco companies, bigger strain on health care due to increased pack/year numbers.

[onthemark]

I hope they are right that this will lead to fewer kids smoking but no one really knows what level it will take to make cigarettes non addictive. It sounds like a giant experiment but I do . think it is better to try something than to do nothing at all. My preference would be to not let anyone born after 1999 buy cigarettes at all.

[JB 883]

They are just being goofy at this point with their cigarette laws. Vape and weed are the new "things".

They could outlaw cigarettes completely but it would not matter. People would just get hooked on the next thing like vape, weed, or whatever.

 

Besides that, if lowering nicotine really had any effect on whether or not someone kept smoking, then quitting should be a lot easier if someone switched to low nicotine cigarettes but supposedly that is not even close to being true.

Now IF a person does need so much nicotine, they will just smoke more cigarettes.

 

Besides that, every time they put up another obstacle for cigarette companies, they easily find a way around it. Like when they could not use words like "mild, light, ultra light..." Instead they started calling them by colors. Gold, Rose, black, blue...

 

 

 

[sgt.barney]

9 hours ago, Frezflops said:

 

... those who are addicted will just smoke and buy more which would drive profits up. 

 

 

Does anyone here NOT think that is the actual intent behind said legislation? 

 

I mean - Come on, folks ...

 

 

EZPZ

[Frezflops]

Yep

[johnny5]

I'm sure that I would have wound up smoking more if this was passed when I was still a smoker.

 

To people who have never been addicted to nicotine and don't understand the addiction, this would sound like politicians are doing something positive to help the health crisis of smoking. 

 

The reality is that this is just giving tobacco companies more business.  Pretty sick and pathetic.

[Jenny]

To think we actually pay people to come up with this kind of helpful crap.  

[onthemark]

People can submit comments on the proposed new regulation by following the instructions in  https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2018-05345.pdf to https://www.regulations.gov/

 

My view is that if they can lower the nicotine levels to make them non-addictive then teenagers who experiment with cigarettes won't become

addicted, life-long smokers.  Regarding people who are already addicted, it looks like research suggests that people will move to other products like

vaping or gum to get their nicotine fix if the price of cigarettes is high and the nicotine is too low to get a fix.  Or addicted smokers will quit.  Currently nicotine levels are at 1.1-1.9 averaging around 1.5 (I forget the units) and they are talking about lowering to 0.3 to 0.5, so there would be no way to compensate in smoking behavior besides upping to 3 times the current usage. Since most smokers are low income this would be prohibitively expensive.

 

The science behind the proposed regulations is in a publically available paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine "Potential Public Health Effects of Reducing Nicotine Levels in Cigarettes in the United States"  http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsr1714617?query=featured_home#.WqqcpNF04k8.twitter

 

Henry Waxman, who famously interrogated the cigarette executives who all said they believed nicotine was not addictive is also in favour of this move. I don't think it is a cynical ploy.

Edited March 17, 2018 by onthemark
added paper

[JB 883]

Wouldn't do no good to sign or comment on some GOVT thing.

Donald Trump would just come along and say "I hope every one of the sons of bitches get fired" since that seems to be his answer to everything.

 

 

[bmart]

People will smoke more, more sales will occur, more taxes will be paid to the govt. That simple. 

[Dutchess66]

I would have smoked more and inhaled deeper. I hated light sigarettes.

Better yet to make smoking much more expensive and invest in good addiction treatment. And in prevention of course.

 

Dutchess

[tocevoD]

Governments and tobacco companies are the crudest beings ob the planet.

 

I swear to god that when I was packing in on New year's Day this year hearing and seeing them yearly adverts, which are supposed to be helpful to your quit, were the things that were making me want to have a cigarette again. After January the frequency of the adverts changed and things became a lot easier for me.

 

I swear they put the adverts on in January to kill a lot of peoples quits and not to help them.