I come from a family of smokers and have tried hard to help my parents and my sister quit. It is not a freedom or relaxing habit. It is a huge expense that is killing them. My sister has chosen cigarettes over food before. This addiction is a huge cost keeping many working class people in poverty. My mother has tried everything to quit, but has not been able to. What is wrong with the government taking action to save millions of lives? Why are we not questioning the despicable actions of the tobacco industry to lie and continue killing people? Corporate overreach is far worse than anything our government has done in terms of regulation.
6
The optimal strategy to reduce cigarette addiction is to aggressively enforce laws against illegal sales to minors.
As long as that's not happening, it seems every other initiative is a waste of time.
As long as that's not happening, it seems every other initiative is a waste of time.
2
If a smoker is addicted to a certain level of nicotine already, they'll just smoke more cigarettes to reach their usual level. What the cigarette industry is doing by lowering nicotine levels in cigarettes, is really a plan to sell more packs and make more money.
5
I struggle with this. If smokers were made to pay their fair share of medical expenses then let them smoke away, but I am paying for their bad habits so I want it to stop. Also, mind you, their smoke is killing me too!!
1
What is a "non-addictive level of nicotine anyway?" Addicts have certain requirements to satisfy their cravings and will do what they must to obtain it. If a person's habit requires a certain amount of nicotine to satisfy his or her anxiety, cutting the amount of nicotine per cigarette is easily circumvented by simply smoking a lot more cigarettes. By far, the worst cancer-causing chemical in cigarettes is not nicotine, but tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNA's). BTW vaping does not have TSNAs). American cigarettes have the highest TSNA levels in the world. Even no-nicotine cigarettes are more deadly here than normal ones abroad.
Nobody smokes tobacco just to inhale burning leaves. They smoke for the nicotine hit & anxiety release. Cut the nicotine and all you accomplish is to increase the number of cigarettes they will smoke to get their required dose or will change the delivery method. It ain't brain surgery, Proctor.
Even worse is that you will create an immensely profitable market for smuggling regular (un-taxed) cigarettes, mainly from Canada (the border is 5,525 miles long) or the Caribbean. Prohibition turned a small group of Sicilian immigrants shaking down local merchants into huge bootlegging crime families. One more drug to entice mobsters to smuggle. Buy lots of stock in Cigarette Boat builders.
Legal websites sell cigarettes from all over the world (better & cheaper than at your local convenience store), delivered right to your door.
This is all for show.
Nobody smokes tobacco just to inhale burning leaves. They smoke for the nicotine hit & anxiety release. Cut the nicotine and all you accomplish is to increase the number of cigarettes they will smoke to get their required dose or will change the delivery method. It ain't brain surgery, Proctor.
Even worse is that you will create an immensely profitable market for smuggling regular (un-taxed) cigarettes, mainly from Canada (the border is 5,525 miles long) or the Caribbean. Prohibition turned a small group of Sicilian immigrants shaking down local merchants into huge bootlegging crime families. One more drug to entice mobsters to smuggle. Buy lots of stock in Cigarette Boat builders.
Legal websites sell cigarettes from all over the world (better & cheaper than at your local convenience store), delivered right to your door.
This is all for show.
6
Less nicotine? A good idea. But how about banning the sale of all tobacco products and finally removing the scourge of disease and death once and for all?
I know a pipe dream. But really, why not?
Hundreds of thousands of scientific studies (yes, over 200,000) have concluded tobacco is harmful to health. Do we need any more evidence?
Also, lets set the record straight. Nicotine is not a harmless substance (Sorry e-cig fans). Not to the fetus. Not to babies. Not to children. Not to teenagers. And not to young adults. True, the older you are, the less powerful the harmful effects, Let's set e-cig purchase age to 26, just to be safe.
Visit the CDC website and find the last few Surgeon General reports.
I know a pipe dream. But really, why not?
Hundreds of thousands of scientific studies (yes, over 200,000) have concluded tobacco is harmful to health. Do we need any more evidence?
Also, lets set the record straight. Nicotine is not a harmless substance (Sorry e-cig fans). Not to the fetus. Not to babies. Not to children. Not to teenagers. And not to young adults. True, the older you are, the less powerful the harmful effects, Let's set e-cig purchase age to 26, just to be safe.
Visit the CDC website and find the last few Surgeon General reports.
1
Tobacco addiction iis a complex with many more factors than chemical dependency on nicotine. There is the companionship of offering and accepting cigarettes and lights,,a mark of completing some task, a ritual with which to follow a meal (or sex), or just looking cool. All of these are hard to give up. I would expect low nicotine cigarettes might reduce addiction rates and ease going clean, but I wonder about how much.
Beware the unintended consequences. If you reduce the nicotine content of each cigarette by half, most smokers will probably end up smoking twice as many cigarettes. Mark my words, in 10 years we'll be reading about studies in which public health officials express shock at exactly this outcome.
4
Of course, smoking addiction is likely to be lessened by lower nicotine cigarettes. When I taught a smoke-ending class some years ago, we recommended that people start by switching to lower-nicotine cigarettes before their quit date.
But smoking is about much more than physical addiction. It also gives fidgety hands something to do. It's highly linked to people and places where a smoker usually lights up, such as with coffee or after dinner.
This won't hurt, but stronger prevention efforts are key to keep kids from smoking in the first place.
But smoking is about much more than physical addiction. It also gives fidgety hands something to do. It's highly linked to people and places where a smoker usually lights up, such as with coffee or after dinner.
This won't hurt, but stronger prevention efforts are key to keep kids from smoking in the first place.
Not a smoker. Reading all the comments so far.
How about encouraging or mandating cigarettes be labeled with all ingredients that would have varying amounts of nicotine. Might that encourage some folks to voluntarily slowly reduce their nicotine intake??
How about encouraging or mandating cigarettes be labeled with all ingredients that would have varying amounts of nicotine. Might that encourage some folks to voluntarily slowly reduce their nicotine intake??
2
Nicotine: a contact nerve poison/insecticide, produced by the tobacco plant as an evolutionary response to leaf-eating insects. Nicotine kills insects. Current insecticides known as neonicotinoids (banned in Europe), are wrecking havoc with pollinator bee populations in the US. I wonder if the Government spent more advertising dollars letting the populace know they are smoking an insecticide, smokers may choose differently. It makes me sick just thinking of smoking an insecticide. Reducing the nicotine to non-addictive levels would stop the next generation of addicts; because that its what we are talking about.
There is no political will to raise the taxes on cigarettes to cover the current medical costs as a result of them.
There is no political will to raise the taxes on cigarettes to cover the current medical costs as a result of them.
2
If the politicians and government health agencies had lifted a finger to seriously help addicted smokers get free of this terrible addiction (no, those telephone "quit lines" don't count) I would applaud this nicotine-reduction strategy. But all they've done is tax us into poverty, allow employers to discriminate against us in hiring, let insurance companies charge us higher premiums for policies that won't even cover any prescription or counseling for tobacco addiction, kick us out of public parks and off of college campuses our taxes pay for, and encourage our children, friends and neighbors to treat us like murderers. The science tells us that nicotine is as addictive as heroin. So how about treating smokers with the same concern now being shown for opioid addicts? Spend a few million of those billions of dollars politicians want to spend on opioid addicts on us. Just getting free nicotine patches would help.
2
From a typical non-smoker. Anyone who smokes and who switched from the high tar and nicotine brands (Marlboro Reds) to the "light" ones (Carlton, America Spirit, Native brand) can tell you there is a huge difference there...And, a therapist once told me that if there was a way to make cigarettes "safe" - doctors would prescribe them due to the many benefits of nicotine. And, of course, while cigarettes do cause many deaths, not all smokers die from them. A lot has to do with genetics and other factors. And, no one gets out alive anyway. So, I get the concerns with the smell etc -- and vaping has a lot to say for it -- but I know lots of people who never ever ever smoked who are still dead now.
3
A "multi-year road map..." Let me guess: For the first twenty years, reduce nicotine by 50%, so people will smoke twice as many cigarettes. And somebody better re-check the data on what level of nicotine is addictive. Is that coming from Phillip Morris, or from the people that tell us one puff of marijuana leads to heroin addiction?
Has any corporation ever been charged with murder / homicide / manslaughter?
This was the same specious approach to the opioid crisis. Withdraw the product, for all intents and purposes, with the result that addicts fled to heroin. Is there a method whereby the habit may be fed but without doing harm to the human body?
1
Cigarettes do not come "as directed." An alcohol, which is as addictive, doesn't either.
Benzodiazepines and opioids are addictive as directed.
Benzodiazepines and opioids are addictive as directed.
Actually compensatory smoking does not occur if you read the research when cigarettes are truly below the addictive level. It is not really prohibition as there will still be many ways for people to get nicotine. Of course there will be those who buy Cuban cigars when they were illegal, however if there are safer ways for people to get their fix, then I am not sure why it is a bad idea to improve public health. I think lowest nicotine cigarettes make a lot of sense and because they will almost assuredly phased in, I think that many of the fears people have about not seeing Marlboros and Salems at their gas station are overblown. Have you noticed that many of the people in government now seem to be ignoring Trump? Good to see the surgeon general taking his cue from the World Health Organization and science rather than from Twitter!
1
I am reading a number of comments from people who obviously do not smoke (a number of the NYT Picks). So- the "don't-save-people-from-themselves" crowd; does that also go for obesity-hypertension-diabetes and other chronic preventable or manageable issues? I grew up in a family of smokers- during a time where virtually everyone smoked; Doctors, Pastors. Smoking in Grocery Stores, Hospital rooms was the norm. Cigarette addiction is worse than Heroin (yes people- it is). My own dad died from Lung Cancer- and hated smoking- but could not quit even with the best of his efforts. Why do we live in a society that is so callous and just mean; I wish I had the answer.
2
“We are absolutely serious — one day we want to stop selling cigarettes,”
Yes, and that day is somewhere in the VERY late 21st Century, and this only pertains to sales in this country.
The WORLD needs to shut down the global tobacco "industry". It would not exist if not for the highly addictive effects of nicotine, a LOT of nicotine. Why would anyone begin smoking if not for some physical "reward"? There is nothing good about tobacco.
Yes, and that day is somewhere in the VERY late 21st Century, and this only pertains to sales in this country.
The WORLD needs to shut down the global tobacco "industry". It would not exist if not for the highly addictive effects of nicotine, a LOT of nicotine. Why would anyone begin smoking if not for some physical "reward"? There is nothing good about tobacco.
2
Thank you, Professor Proctor, for accurately describing the American tobacco addiction crisis as a "catastrophic and entirely preventable epidemic." The "e word" (epidemic) is almost never used by journalists or politicians when discussing tobacco issues, let alone the qualifier "catastrophic." The term "epidemic" suggests that society and government need to take strong, immediate actions to combat a serious health problem. This, of course, is exactly what Big Tobacco and its supporters do not want. When journalists and politicians refuse to use the term "epidemic" in relation to tobacco addiction, they are, in fact, supporting the agenda of Big Tobacco.
With regard to the FDA proposal to reduce nicotine to non-addictive levels, this is a great public health decision. However, never underestimate the ability of Big Tobacco and its supporters to turn a threatened defeat into a temporary roadblock. I would not be surprised if nicotine levels in cigarettes a decade from now are exactly the same as they are today, regardless of what the FDA proposes.
With regard to the FDA proposal to reduce nicotine to non-addictive levels, this is a great public health decision. However, never underestimate the ability of Big Tobacco and its supporters to turn a threatened defeat into a temporary roadblock. I would not be surprised if nicotine levels in cigarettes a decade from now are exactly the same as they are today, regardless of what the FDA proposes.
To smoke or not is a risk-benefit decision that should be left up to the individual.
After a half-century long campaign to educate the public on the dangers of smoking, the government has done all it is appropriate for it to do. There are also benefits to smoking. It is why some people still choose to do it. We should regard this as an informed consent and leave it alone.
The economic cost to society has been greatly exaggerated. Smokers do not live as long, and their end of life care is therefore less. High taxes on tobacco are correctly called "sin" taxes. They are not imposed to compensate society for healthcare costs, but to discourage behavior that the majority considers improper. In a way, the non-smoking campaign has become a form of state religion.
I quit smoking a pipe 25 years ago. But this has gone so far I feel like picking it up again as a form of protest.
After a half-century long campaign to educate the public on the dangers of smoking, the government has done all it is appropriate for it to do. There are also benefits to smoking. It is why some people still choose to do it. We should regard this as an informed consent and leave it alone.
The economic cost to society has been greatly exaggerated. Smokers do not live as long, and their end of life care is therefore less. High taxes on tobacco are correctly called "sin" taxes. They are not imposed to compensate society for healthcare costs, but to discourage behavior that the majority considers improper. In a way, the non-smoking campaign has become a form of state religion.
I quit smoking a pipe 25 years ago. But this has gone so far I feel like picking it up again as a form of protest.
2
A start would be mandatory offering of nicotine free cigarettes. Then a steady lowering of nicotine permissible over 5 years. Then a mandatory level that is not addictive.
All the while remembering what happened with prohibition and alcohol.
All the while remembering what happened with prohibition and alcohol.
Instead of obsessing about the 16.8 percent of the population that smokes, perhaps they should concentrate on the 100 percent who eat and finally get the pesticides and antibiotics out of our food supply.
5
This is absurd. As other readers said, the tar is still high. E-cigarettes are recommended as replacements because of less tar and presumed less harm.
I recently started using plastic filter tips that claim to help remove some of the tar and nicotine. You can see the crap build up after a few cigarettes. It's only been a five days but it seems like an okay form of harm reduction for those who struggle to go cold turkey or switch to e-cigs. I'm not waking up with a dry mouth anymore and feel like I'm smoking more out of habit than craving. I think it'll be easier to wean down after a few weeks with a little bit less of the crap in my system.
The FDA definitely has this sdrawkcab-ssa. Reduce tar across the board, offer tapered nicotine levels.
The rest of the health/science community should keep innovating methods of harm reduction with the knowledge that this FDA probably won't get it right.
I recently started using plastic filter tips that claim to help remove some of the tar and nicotine. You can see the crap build up after a few cigarettes. It's only been a five days but it seems like an okay form of harm reduction for those who struggle to go cold turkey or switch to e-cigs. I'm not waking up with a dry mouth anymore and feel like I'm smoking more out of habit than craving. I think it'll be easier to wean down after a few weeks with a little bit less of the crap in my system.
The FDA definitely has this sdrawkcab-ssa. Reduce tar across the board, offer tapered nicotine levels.
The rest of the health/science community should keep innovating methods of harm reduction with the knowledge that this FDA probably won't get it right.
1
All the tobacco industry needs to do is wave a lot of green at the FDA and this "well-thought-out" proposal will dissipate like the smoke of a smoldering butt.
Wish this had also mentioned the impact of Tobacco Product Waste. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4129234/
Environmental impacts such as water quality/water pollution and air quality are important.
I realize it's addiction and habit at work; and my philosophy especially with adults is "Smoking is up to you, butt? Well that's litter." This doesn't always stop me from sometimes chatting up people on the street who are smoking -- invariably standing still versus taking a walk, which is healthier. Anywho...I usually mentioned that all they (Big Tobacco) want is your money. At the very least, please, folk who smoke, please don't litter that plastic tip, that filter -- and the pack and packaging. Thank you.
Environmental impacts such as water quality/water pollution and air quality are important.
I realize it's addiction and habit at work; and my philosophy especially with adults is "Smoking is up to you, butt? Well that's litter." This doesn't always stop me from sometimes chatting up people on the street who are smoking -- invariably standing still versus taking a walk, which is healthier. Anywho...I usually mentioned that all they (Big Tobacco) want is your money. At the very least, please, folk who smoke, please don't litter that plastic tip, that filter -- and the pack and packaging. Thank you.
1
Not sure I'd go down the road of arguing for eliminating tobacco because of "environmental waste." Meat production is probably a hundred times worse. And even almonds in CA have an enormous impact. Etc. Etc.
1
Most of the comments seem to focus on existing smokers - yes, they will double down to feed their addiction. The real benefit of the proposal is that current smokers will be the last generation with the addiction.
2
People will just chew nicotine gum while smoking.
1
Smokers just will smoke more cigarettes, so this idea is just downright stupid. Instead, help people quit altogether by providing medical care, gym access to combat cravings.
1
Look, I'm a smoker of 40 years. By my last calculation, I've paid somewhere close to $150,000 in cigarette TAXES. I've never spent a day in hospital... in my life.
It is against the law ("officially") in New York, for me to smoke a Marlboro at 3am on a Wednesday in a snowing February in Central Park when there isn't a soul around; but you can drive your SUV right through Central Park.. no problem. If you think Santiago de Chile, Mexico City, and LA are choking because of my cigarette (and not the car I have never owned in my life) you're delusional.
Why don't we Americans simply shut up about our puritanical obsession with telling other people how to live?
My $14 pack of cigarettes (which I smoke in the privacy of my study, not dirtying your lungs..at all.. unlike your car mine) costs about 10 cents to make; the rest of that is in taxes. To send your kids to school.
You put out your combustion engine; I'll put our my cigarette.
It is against the law ("officially") in New York, for me to smoke a Marlboro at 3am on a Wednesday in a snowing February in Central Park when there isn't a soul around; but you can drive your SUV right through Central Park.. no problem. If you think Santiago de Chile, Mexico City, and LA are choking because of my cigarette (and not the car I have never owned in my life) you're delusional.
Why don't we Americans simply shut up about our puritanical obsession with telling other people how to live?
My $14 pack of cigarettes (which I smoke in the privacy of my study, not dirtying your lungs..at all.. unlike your car mine) costs about 10 cents to make; the rest of that is in taxes. To send your kids to school.
You put out your combustion engine; I'll put our my cigarette.
18
Undoubtedly there's a definite benefit to this, of course, and with a commensurate decline in smoking purchases, it's probable another product's sin-tax will have to be raised, and repeatedly as cigarettes' has been, to make up for the reduction in the $15 billion or so annual federal cigarette tax revenues, not to mention the states' taxes. Smoking's costs in lives and to many consumers, smokers or not, while conceivably diminishing, will likely continue for the foreseeable future.
The equivalent of 4 fully loaded 747s die each day due to these horrid things. Of course there is no number of dead or devastation of any kind that is more important than corporate profits in 21st century America. We all know that by now - not even worth getting outraged about it any more.
2
So let me get this straight: take the nonlethal nicotine to very low levels, forcing addicts to use more of the product, thus increasing exposure to the carcinogens, and increasing lung cancer rates. Brilliant! What could possibly go wrong?
4
"Nicotine addiction" is a lie that "could only be sustained by systematically ignoring all contradictory evidence."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3116468/
For the government to commit fraud to deprive us of our liberties is automatically a violation of our Constitutional rights to the equal protection of the laws, just as much as if the government purposely threw innocent people in prison. And for the government to spread lies about phony smoking dangers is terrorism, no different from calling in phony bomb threats.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3116468/
For the government to commit fraud to deprive us of our liberties is automatically a violation of our Constitutional rights to the equal protection of the laws, just as much as if the government purposely threw innocent people in prison. And for the government to spread lies about phony smoking dangers is terrorism, no different from calling in phony bomb threats.
1
Yeah, right. And climate change is real too!
I started smoking in the 50's, when I was 14, and thought it made me look sophisticated and glamourous. I liked the dizzy feeling I felt from smoking, also. I stopped smoking many decades later. I think if cigarettes had not been addictive, I would have dropped them when I got over the glamour-hit. This idea might prevent young people from getting hooked as I did. Even though I agree that a smoker would just buy more cigarettes to get the same kick, and agree with all the other bad reasons for doing this, it still might save someone from the slavery of addiction at a young age.
1
Ask any alcoholic that quits drinking, and they will tell you that it was not all that hard, but they still have a pack of cigarettes they cannot put down. Why not make it easier for smokers to walk away from something that causes them to cough, wheeze and hack their way into each and every day. And their lifelong addiction models dangerous behavior for their children and grandchildren. My advice: Instead of protecting the rights of tobacco companies to poison and kill Americans, let's take the time to protect them instead.
1
Nicotine, gram for gram is more addictive then Cocaine or Heroin. Cigarettes are an engineered product designed to deliver nicotine in the most efficient manner possible. All of the cigarette manufacturers are nothing more than drug dealers in three piece suits and stocks on Wall Street.
If they cannot sell their drug in America, they will simply sell it as supplement to the vaporizer industry or boost the strength in the third world nations they covet since they are extremely efficient in marketing their product.
I am sure that they will not let this go down without a fight.
If they cannot sell their drug in America, they will simply sell it as supplement to the vaporizer industry or boost the strength in the third world nations they covet since they are extremely efficient in marketing their product.
I am sure that they will not let this go down without a fight.
NICOTINE Addiction occurs because the only substance that is more highly addictive to the human brain is cocaine. The damage done by nicotine is not limited to the lives of the addicts, but to the network of people they smoke around as well. My beloved sister died about 23 years ago at 39 from Non Hodgkins Lymphoma; her first husband was a severely addicted smoker who consumed 4 packs a day. His secondhand smoke was the primary source of any carcinogens she encountered. I think it's fine for the government to offer programs similar to methadone for heroin to nicotine addicts. For far too long, before the current bans on smoking, I was subjected to the tobacco smoke of others, to which I'm highly allergic. If they have a right to poisoned air, I also have a right to clean air!
2
Sorry, but cigarettes are not the only consumer product that kills when used as directed. So are guns.
3
Simple, and not-mutually-exclusive idea: raise the minimum age to buy cigarettes by one year every year. No one who's legally entitled to buy cigarettes now will be denied cigarettes, and no one who's not old enough now to buy cigarettes will ever be able to buy cigarettes.
1
Nicotine is not the problem! Smoke is a problem, as are the toxic chemicals the companies put into the cigarettes.
Here's how I know this: my brother, a life-long smoke, switched a few months ago from cigarettes (Marlboro, I believe) to e-cigarettes. He gets his nicotine hit still, but does not inhale smoke or any of the garbage carcinogens the company puts in to the cigarettes. His life-long smoker's cough has vanished completely, he has more energy, and just his overall color is better.
Please let's not pretend that nicotine is the problem with cigarettes. If we are going to put our energies into anything smoking related, let's do more research on e-cigs versus tobacco-smoked cigs. Let's also all start advocating for the tobacco companies to reveal every single ingredient that they put in their cigarettes. And, while we are at it, let's move toward the kinds of health warnings cigarette packets carry in Europe. The warnings are much bigger than the promotional labeling, and they sometimes even include pictures of diseased organs, or of people with tracheotomies.
I have had three relatives die horribly from smoking cigarettes--one from lung cancer, and two from emphysema. It's a horrible death. Can we start showing some sense around this issue?
Here's how I know this: my brother, a life-long smoke, switched a few months ago from cigarettes (Marlboro, I believe) to e-cigarettes. He gets his nicotine hit still, but does not inhale smoke or any of the garbage carcinogens the company puts in to the cigarettes. His life-long smoker's cough has vanished completely, he has more energy, and just his overall color is better.
Please let's not pretend that nicotine is the problem with cigarettes. If we are going to put our energies into anything smoking related, let's do more research on e-cigs versus tobacco-smoked cigs. Let's also all start advocating for the tobacco companies to reveal every single ingredient that they put in their cigarettes. And, while we are at it, let's move toward the kinds of health warnings cigarette packets carry in Europe. The warnings are much bigger than the promotional labeling, and they sometimes even include pictures of diseased organs, or of people with tracheotomies.
I have had three relatives die horribly from smoking cigarettes--one from lung cancer, and two from emphysema. It's a horrible death. Can we start showing some sense around this issue?
4
Taking the addiction out of tobacco points towards taking the addiction out of alcohol and opioids. But addiction is not the problem.
Profit is the driver of marketing addiction for any food or drug. Better human health threatens that capitalist model. Treating opioid addiction as a criminal justice problem for black and brown opioid addicts is a problem. Treating opioid addiction differently from tobacco and alcohol addiction is the problem.
Better human health is the humble human empathetic solution to all addictions. We are driven by our biological DNA genetic evolutionary fit one human race species nature and cultural nurture to crave fat, salt and sugar as our penultimate addictions.
Profit is the driver of marketing addiction for any food or drug. Better human health threatens that capitalist model. Treating opioid addiction as a criminal justice problem for black and brown opioid addicts is a problem. Treating opioid addiction differently from tobacco and alcohol addiction is the problem.
Better human health is the humble human empathetic solution to all addictions. We are driven by our biological DNA genetic evolutionary fit one human race species nature and cultural nurture to crave fat, salt and sugar as our penultimate addictions.
1
While nicotine is the addictive ingredient in tobacco products, it's not the part that causes cancer and emphysema. I think that low-nicotine smokes will cause people to smoke more, taking on more tars and carcinogens, in order to satisfy their nicotine cravings.
The better solution is vaping. As someone who *loved* smoking, I haven't had a cigarette in over three years, and I'll never touch one again. Quitting has caused me no discomfort whatsoever, and I enjoy vaping even more than cigarettes. Indeed, were cigarettes miraculously found to be completely harmless, I doubt that I'd switch back. And, while I'm probably more addicted to nicotine than ever, who cares. I suppose it's possible that vaping poses undiscovered long-term health risks, but I frankly doubt it, and even if such risks exist, they're surely peanuts compared to the damage from smoking. The key is to do it right: forget about those awful disposable fake cigarettes in the convenience store; spend the hundred bucks (or less) for a decent setup. And don't bother with "tobacco" flavors, IMO. It's not tobacco. It's a different, better way to have a great nicotine hit. Find a flavor you like, and there's no going back. No will power required, and pain-free.
The better solution is vaping. As someone who *loved* smoking, I haven't had a cigarette in over three years, and I'll never touch one again. Quitting has caused me no discomfort whatsoever, and I enjoy vaping even more than cigarettes. Indeed, were cigarettes miraculously found to be completely harmless, I doubt that I'd switch back. And, while I'm probably more addicted to nicotine than ever, who cares. I suppose it's possible that vaping poses undiscovered long-term health risks, but I frankly doubt it, and even if such risks exist, they're surely peanuts compared to the damage from smoking. The key is to do it right: forget about those awful disposable fake cigarettes in the convenience store; spend the hundred bucks (or less) for a decent setup. And don't bother with "tobacco" flavors, IMO. It's not tobacco. It's a different, better way to have a great nicotine hit. Find a flavor you like, and there's no going back. No will power required, and pain-free.
1
If nicotine, while not exactly healthy for you, isn't the worst part of cigarette smoke, but it's what people crave when smoking, why aren't we more focused on eliminating the harmful chemicals while retaining nicotine levels? If the war on drugs and prohibition can serve as any guide, people are gonna find a way to get their fix. As an earlier commenter pointed out, this is like taking the alcohol out of booze. It hasn't worked, and it still won't work.
1
Hmm, explain to me why we are trying to reduce addictive and poisonous nicotine in tobacco products while we encourage kids to "vape" the same stuff. It sounds as though the nicotine vaping lobbyists outbid the old school tobacco companies.
1
Any number of other posters have pointed out why this won't work. However, I have a twist on the FDAs proposed solution. It would work something like this: in 2020, if you were born after 2006, you can only buy reduced nicotine cigarettes (presumably after reaching the age of 18). Of course, like alcohol, some people would find ways around this, like kids getting older people to buy for them. Even then, I think it would dramatically reduce smoking, albeit slowly.
Perhaps another option might include allowing the sale of cigarettes by the individual cigarette instead of packages of 20.
This might foster lower consumption, when the consumer doesn't have an additional 19 units available to consume.
This might foster lower consumption, when the consumer doesn't have an additional 19 units available to consume.
1
Common sense, of course - but the sale of "loosies" was banned long ago. It's just what we're trying to avoid - people enjoying themselves cheaply.
2
Nicotine is not benign. It has major effects as a cause of peripheral vascular disease and heart disease. When added to or added back to a product it should at least be classed as an over-the-counter drug
2
Reliable and extensive scientific research indicates that nicotine delivery levels below 1/10th of a milligram per cig will be below the threshold to initiate and sustain addiction.
Typical cigs deliver one to two milligrams of nicotine each.
It is highly unlikely that someone would or could smoke ten packs of cigarettes a day.
Nicotine reduction was authorized by the tobacco act in 2009, its taken far too long to implement this regulation.
With 1400 American souls a day prematurely meeting their maker only to benefit big tobacco's 'enterprise of death', engineering out the addiction that the industry has intentionally perfected is a sensible and essential life saving move.
Typical cigs deliver one to two milligrams of nicotine each.
It is highly unlikely that someone would or could smoke ten packs of cigarettes a day.
Nicotine reduction was authorized by the tobacco act in 2009, its taken far too long to implement this regulation.
With 1400 American souls a day prematurely meeting their maker only to benefit big tobacco's 'enterprise of death', engineering out the addiction that the industry has intentionally perfected is a sensible and essential life saving move.
4
I'm a nonsmoker and have no direct interest in tobacco stocks.
They almost certainly won't go straight from the current levels to the nonaddictive levels. (The tobacco lobbyists still have plenty of power and influence). So it will happen gradually, perhaps over decades.
So in the mean time, at say half the current level of nicotine, how many smokers will be smoking 50% to 100% more cigarettes. When I was in school, I remember how much WORSE smoking more packs a day was, via pictures of smokers' lungs, etc.
On the way to "saving" smokers, how many will your preferred meddling kill?
This reminds me of the anti-soda folks. Tax soda, but let all the other nonsense like sodium, fat, overeating, all manner of candies etc. alone.
I think your kind is more about scoring political points than about principle.
They almost certainly won't go straight from the current levels to the nonaddictive levels. (The tobacco lobbyists still have plenty of power and influence). So it will happen gradually, perhaps over decades.
So in the mean time, at say half the current level of nicotine, how many smokers will be smoking 50% to 100% more cigarettes. When I was in school, I remember how much WORSE smoking more packs a day was, via pictures of smokers' lungs, etc.
On the way to "saving" smokers, how many will your preferred meddling kill?
This reminds me of the anti-soda folks. Tax soda, but let all the other nonsense like sodium, fat, overeating, all manner of candies etc. alone.
I think your kind is more about scoring political points than about principle.
1
Having quit over a hundred times it finally became obvious that I resumed smoking during times of emotional turmoil. I would start by bumming from another smoker if at work or go straight to a store and buy a pack during non-work hours. I finally quit when I made a commitment to learn and apply healthy strategies to cope with my emotions. The results have been outstanding. But, I don't think nicotine levels would have mattered all that much in my case as I smoked for effect because I've been addicted for 50 years.
Sure, a drastic reduction in nicotine levels will result in some nicotine addicts seeking other sources of "good smokes" such as bootleggers, vaping, etc., and some will smoke more, but it only seems logical to me that there will be significantly fewer new nicotine addicts. And that in itself is another big step in the right direction.
Sure, a drastic reduction in nicotine levels will result in some nicotine addicts seeking other sources of "good smokes" such as bootleggers, vaping, etc., and some will smoke more, but it only seems logical to me that there will be significantly fewer new nicotine addicts. And that in itself is another big step in the right direction.
2
As a public health remedy this will fail spectacularly. Cigarette smokers will smoke more cigarettes to get their hit. Sales for tobacco companies will double, maybe triple. Since most smokers are lower income, this will amount to yet another tax on the poor. Any and all benefits will flow to Big Tobacco and/ or the vaping industry and their paid shills inside and outside the FDA (I'm looking at you Mr. Proctor). By the way, vaping has not been proven safe, so why do so many cite it as a viable alternative to cigarettes?
1
Um, seriously, do you think this administration is going to approve something which would reduce the consumer sales of a major corporation or corporations?
I'm betting not. The tobacco companies have steadily been adding to the addictive ingredients in cigarettes and other tobacco ... and have been doing so for many years.
Great idea to limit nicotine. Not going to hold my breath to see if this idea flies ...
I'm betting not. The tobacco companies have steadily been adding to the addictive ingredients in cigarettes and other tobacco ... and have been doing so for many years.
Great idea to limit nicotine. Not going to hold my breath to see if this idea flies ...
2
Addicted for 30 years, quit for 13 and got pretty fit and now stage 4 lung cancer. Lots of questions about how to implement (what do you do for the millions already addicted?) but implement we should and fast. I shed a tear everytime I see a young person smoking.
37
The most addictive drugs used by humans are opioids (including oxycontin, heroin, and the profoundly dangerous synthetic opioid, Fentanyl), Nicotine, Alcohol, cocaine (flake or crack), methamphetamine (including crystal meth) and other amphetamine-based drugs, benzodiazopines (some of the most widely prescribed drugs in the world), and, for some, caffeine.
Note that several of these can be gotten by prescription and others can be bought over the counter. And Jeff Sessions and the DEA are chiefly concerned with one of the least dangerous habituating (not addicting) drug, Marijuana. There is usually an LD50 (lethal dose for 50% of people) to give a warning of a drug's potential to kill you. Even aspirin has an LD50 (1750 mg per kg of weight). Pot has no LD50 and you can not overdose and die on it. Not true with all of the above-mentioned drugs. So, why does the DEA class Marijuana in the top class (Schedule I) with Heroin as a dangerous drug? Drugs like synthetic codeine (OxyContin or Vicodan), synthetic morphine (Demeral, Dilaudid), Fentanyl (up to 100 times more potent than morphine), methamphetamine, Adderall (a mixture of 4 salts of meth), and cocaine are all listed as only Schedule II. Am I missing something here?
In 1937, when most pot smokers were black or Mexican, criminalizing it gave law enforcement a handy excuse to arrest & imprison non-whites. In the 60's they found it a good tool to stomp on the hippies & other counterculture people.
Note that several of these can be gotten by prescription and others can be bought over the counter. And Jeff Sessions and the DEA are chiefly concerned with one of the least dangerous habituating (not addicting) drug, Marijuana. There is usually an LD50 (lethal dose for 50% of people) to give a warning of a drug's potential to kill you. Even aspirin has an LD50 (1750 mg per kg of weight). Pot has no LD50 and you can not overdose and die on it. Not true with all of the above-mentioned drugs. So, why does the DEA class Marijuana in the top class (Schedule I) with Heroin as a dangerous drug? Drugs like synthetic codeine (OxyContin or Vicodan), synthetic morphine (Demeral, Dilaudid), Fentanyl (up to 100 times more potent than morphine), methamphetamine, Adderall (a mixture of 4 salts of meth), and cocaine are all listed as only Schedule II. Am I missing something here?
In 1937, when most pot smokers were black or Mexican, criminalizing it gave law enforcement a handy excuse to arrest & imprison non-whites. In the 60's they found it a good tool to stomp on the hippies & other counterculture people.
Take the alcohol out of alcohol, and you'll save many more lives. On the other hand, you'll also create a whole new illegal market. There is something in humans that makes many of us crave physical dependency, it seems.
11
We live in an escapist society. If you look to history, addictive behavior isn't a constant. Especially in well balanced societies in which individuals have a strong sense of purpose, identity, and community. Mind altering efforts/rituals have almost always been present in human history, but not always to an excessive level as we see in America.
This is going to have unintended consequence. People will not get their nicotine fix with one cig, and they will end up smoking more than what they would have if it was left alone.
The CDC states that tobacco use kills 480,00 Americans each year, while alcohol abuse kills 88,000 Americans each year. So, no, eliminating the alcohol content of drinks won't "save many more lives." Tobacco use is much deadlier than alcohol use.
Duh! Folks will just have to buy more cigarettes to get the same nicotine fix. And the tobacco companies' profits will skyrocket. Studies show that poor people will go on food stamps so that they have money to buy cigarettes. Vaping has not yet been proven safe. Where is there a solution in all this???
8
People don't go on EBT benefits just to get nicotine fix. You are misinformed. People go on EBT because they would starve otherwise- on minimum wages.
1
Vaping isn't safe as long as you are vaping nicotine. However, while nicotine is the main culprit in addiction, it is tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs) that are by far the greatest cause of lung cancer. American cigarettes have the highest TSNA levels in the world (For example, Australian cigarettes, even with the same nicotine levels, have 20% of the TSNA levels of American cigarettes). Buy foreign cigarettes on the many websites that sell cigarettes from all over the world, many of which taste better than any American cigarette, and you will get your expected nicotine hit with much less risk of cancer.
A rare chance to believe in Make America Great Again.
What next? Regulating crack cocaine? What kind of nanny state nonsense is this? (sarcasm)
1
And then establish a regulation that says guns can hold no more than six bullets. Our tax dollars at work.
I would prefer one..or none. Please.
As someone who smoked and quit (the third time was the charm), I am convinced that what makes smoking addictive is not so much the nicotine, but the distinct kind of breathing a smoker uses while smoking.
The short uptake, long exhale is a kind of yoga breath and it's relaxing. I don't believe anyone has looked into this, but my instinct (nothing more or less, but still a strong one) is that this may be (in addition to the nicotine) what makes smoking so addictive. If anyone knows whether this has been researched, please let me know.
The short uptake, long exhale is a kind of yoga breath and it's relaxing. I don't believe anyone has looked into this, but my instinct (nothing more or less, but still a strong one) is that this may be (in addition to the nicotine) what makes smoking so addictive. If anyone knows whether this has been researched, please let me know.
2
A sure way to sell more cigarettes because smokers need a given amount of nicotine. This is likely to imcrease rates of cancer rather than lower them.
3
I had the exact same thought. All this will accomplish is smokers will smoke more.
2
This comes from the Trump Administration. Be suspicious. Be very suspicious. Whatever they do, it is never about public health.
1
Sounds like it started under Obama.
While it is nicotine that is addictive , it is the free radicals ( 10 to the 14th power per puff) that cause most of the toxicity to the smoker. This will occur regardless of the nicotine content. How to avoid free radicals : don't light the cigarette.
2
A lot of commenters seem to be missing the point here. While it's true that tar and other chemicals--rather than nicotine--are what causes the greatest health hazards, if nicotine is lower, addiction rates will be lower and, thus, people who want to avoid the health hazards associates with the tar and chemicals of cigarettes will be able to do so much more easily because they will not be addicted to cigarettes.
2
Cutting down on the concentration of the noxious chemical in cigarette smoke is a good step in the right direction. How about sending the bill of each new case of lung cancer, and the funerary costs for all the far too early deaths due to it, to the tobacco companies?
1
Another example of the criminal fraud your persecution depends on. Those smoking cost claims are based on falsely pretending that costs paid by smokers themselves were paid by others, falsely blaming smoking for diseases caused by infection, and pretending that non-smokers' costs don't exist at all. E.g., the CDC's SAMMEC. The bottom line: At age 20, smokers' lifetime health costs will total 220k Euros, obese peoples' costs will total 250k Euros, and the "Healthy Living" will cost 281k Euros.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2225430/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2225430/
1
This will not work. More nicotine than occurs in tobacco naturally is only one of 32 added ingredients in American cigarettes. Nicotine is released from the body in 17 days after one quits. The other additives? Who knows? My experience when quitting (for good) was that withdrawal was close to a year. All this will do is get people to smoke more because there is a minimal level of nicotine required to maintain that balance. I suspect many people found that to be true when using the patch. Step-down doesn't work because the succeeding steps do not provide the body with that minimal nicotine requirement. After six months on the patch, which was helpful to me, but with unsuccessful attempts to step down, I finally just ripped the Step One off and gutted it out. The FDA needs to regulate the other purposely addictive ingredients that are added into the cigarette.
3
Now if we could just get the producers of crack to lower the cocaine content to non-addictive levels!
2
The real problem is that smoking is such a pleasant habit and activity (do you remember old cigarette ads - Amelia Earhart and Lucky Strike Greens in 1928 and Chesterfields, 1931 'blow some my way'?). Americans started smoking so young in the 1950s and never realized or faced the perils of inhaling that delightful smoke for decades and decades. In 1954 unfiltered Camels and Chesterfields cost a quarter in a machine that dispensed free matchbooks with every pack ("if you can draw this you can be an artist!"). The habits of addiction and the concomitant paying lots of precious moolah for ashes was difficult to break. Only one way to do it 'forever'. Cold Turkey! And it will ever after be lovely to get a whiff of cigarette smoke in some public place. Blow some my way!
4
This will open a black market for "real" cigarettes.
Nicotine is an addictive drug.
An economist will tell you that this sort of regulation won't curb demand. It will push the market elsewhere, and that's a black market. Enforcement of the regulations could ruin lives as people selling "real" cigarettes on the streets are arrested. Remember the death of Eric Garner?
This is like prohibition, but for cigarettes instead of alcohol.
Look how many deaths were caused by prohibition of alcohol? Look at how many deaths are caused by prohibition of marijuana?
Nicotine is an addictive drug.
An economist will tell you that this sort of regulation won't curb demand. It will push the market elsewhere, and that's a black market. Enforcement of the regulations could ruin lives as people selling "real" cigarettes on the streets are arrested. Remember the death of Eric Garner?
This is like prohibition, but for cigarettes instead of alcohol.
Look how many deaths were caused by prohibition of alcohol? Look at how many deaths are caused by prohibition of marijuana?
1
Vaping is a great way to deliver nicotine without the tar and whatever else is in cigarettes. Ignorant people are against vaping because it looks like smoking. Perhaps those same people should also be against soft drinks while driving because it looks like beer drinking.
Less nicotine in cigarettes will increase the number of cigarettes smoked for the desired effects.
Less nicotine in cigarettes will increase the number of cigarettes smoked for the desired effects.
2
Will reducing the carcinogens in cigarettes reduce the obnoxious smoke and stench from smoking? Will I no longer have to pass up a library book because the chain smoker who had it last saturated it with the foul smell of nicotine? Is this also going to include cigars and chewing tobacco?
Yup! Smokers have a right to waste money on this drug. Just keep it away from me.
Yup! Smokers have a right to waste money on this drug. Just keep it away from me.
1
It is great to see so many people expressing concern about the second order effects here- that folks will seek illegal means for their nicotine, that folks will just smoke more, etc. These are certainly worthwhile to consider. Fortunately a move like this could be reversed if we found that it opened up a large illicit market or that poor people simple spent more to get their nicotine high.
I tend to think this is worth trying as long as we monitor it's success. What we should be most concerned with is new smokers, and it seems reasonable to believe that it will cut down on new smokers because they won't get addicted to the nicotine (though perhaps they do to other addiitivies).
As for illegal supplies, while this is certainly possible it seems unlikely. Unlike heroine or pot, you need a lot of tobacco. It would likely be very expensive and thus not really available (financially) to many smokers, especially young and poor ones with limited resources. It seem really unlikely that folks would take the risk of smuggling large quanitites from over the border, and the US supply can be easily monitored.
I tend to think this is worth trying as long as we monitor it's success. What we should be most concerned with is new smokers, and it seems reasonable to believe that it will cut down on new smokers because they won't get addicted to the nicotine (though perhaps they do to other addiitivies).
As for illegal supplies, while this is certainly possible it seems unlikely. Unlike heroine or pot, you need a lot of tobacco. It would likely be very expensive and thus not really available (financially) to many smokers, especially young and poor ones with limited resources. It seem really unlikely that folks would take the risk of smuggling large quanitites from over the border, and the US supply can be easily monitored.
1
People mail-order all kinds of illegal substances from online vendors – the US postal service does its best, but they don't check the contents of every package, even those coming from other countries. They do spot checks and flag parcels they deem suspicious, but that's it.
Since cigarettes are mass produced, and these limitations wouldn't apply to those circulating in any other country, turning to the internet black market for non-US cigarettes would be a no-brainer.
Since cigarettes are mass produced, and these limitations wouldn't apply to those circulating in any other country, turning to the internet black market for non-US cigarettes would be a no-brainer.
I switched to vaping a few months ago, as has my son. We don't combust tobacco anymore to get our nicotine fixes.
We both feel so much better. Tobacco tar is so self-evidently toxic.
Reducing nicotine in dangerous combustible products makes perfect sense to me.
We both feel so much better. Tobacco tar is so self-evidently toxic.
Reducing nicotine in dangerous combustible products makes perfect sense to me.
1
It might be worth a try if properly enforced. In the interim, keep pushing laws banning smoking in public. Peer pressure has an impact on smokers. I say that as an ex-smoker. When it comes to the point that lighting up becomes socially unacceptable it makes a difference. Many smokers started in the first place because it made you "hip" or look "cool". Making it look "stupid" to smoke will have an impact. One area that needs tighter regulation of people who puff away in an automobile with unfortunate kids or babies strapped in the back. That should be considered "endangerment of a minor" and a primary pullover offense.
1
Spreading lies about phony dangers of secondhand smoke is scientific fraud. For the government to use fraud to deprive us of our liberties is automatically a violation of our Constitutional rights to the equal protection of the laws, just as much as if the government purposely threw innocent people in prison. And for the government to spread lies about phony smoking dangers is terrorism, no different from calling in phony bomb threats.
A considerable proportion of smokers are, in fact, addicted to nicotine, one of the most addictive substances known to humanity, according to science.
Reducing nicotine to non-addictive levels in cigarettes will, I predict, fail miserably ... and infuriate nicotine addicts.
Here's just one study to illustrate the point, "Low Nicotine Cigarettes Fail to Sway Smokers," from the University of California, San Francisco (a medical campus). https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2015/07/131046/low-nicotine-cigarettes-fail-sw...
This has all the hallmarks of do-gooder bureaucratic overreach and almost comical lack of understanding of the problem.
I am a nicotine addict who has not used the drug in a decade. Quitting was one of biggest challenges I've ever faced.
Reducing nicotine to non-addictive levels in cigarettes will, I predict, fail miserably ... and infuriate nicotine addicts.
Here's just one study to illustrate the point, "Low Nicotine Cigarettes Fail to Sway Smokers," from the University of California, San Francisco (a medical campus). https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2015/07/131046/low-nicotine-cigarettes-fail-sw...
This has all the hallmarks of do-gooder bureaucratic overreach and almost comical lack of understanding of the problem.
I am a nicotine addict who has not used the drug in a decade. Quitting was one of biggest challenges I've ever faced.
2
In 1999 there was a movie “The Insider” starring Russell Crowe and Al Pacino about the addictive effects of nicotine and how the industry exploited it to increase their sales and profits. It’s based on a true story in 1994 about a scientist working for a tobacco company that was willing to come forward even under threats from the company. He went forward with the interview and it was filmed for a “60 minutes” segment. It never aired. CBS got cold feet. Give credit to a certain newspaper for condemning CBS with a scathing editorial. The editorial was printed on their front page. I’ll let you guess which paper.
But here we are 23 years later still fighting to reduce nicotine in tobacco! Advice from a former smoker. Don’t!!!
But here we are 23 years later still fighting to reduce nicotine in tobacco! Advice from a former smoker. Don’t!!!
Why does anyone think this will work? People will just smoke more cigarettes, research has shown this over and over again.
2
This looks like an attempt to extort campaign funds from the tobacco industry, a prelude to a tax increase on tobacco, or both. But then again, I predicted it was impossible for a faker like Trump to become president of the USA, so my crystal ball is clearly defective. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how much of the "plan" becomes reality.
2
What a brilliant idea. I wonder what or who has been stopping this for, o, fifty years? Thanks, Mr. Butts!
If you're still smoking in 2017 amidst all of the this evidence, you've got bigger problems.......
2
The more laws, the more criminals.
2
This is a well intentioned but misguided solution to tobacco related diseases. People will simply smoke a greater number cigarettes to get the same stimulant effect, actually increasing their intake of the harmful tars and noxious compounds that cause cancer. It's similar to taking the alcohol out of liquor. You end up drinking more.
I suspect Dr. Proctor has never been a smoker himself, and I doubt he has much experience studying addiction, because there is no such thing as a level of nicotine per cigarette that is free from the risk of addiction. The FDA simply wants an achievable path to shutting down big tobacco. But ironically, tobacco companies could end up selling even more packs of cigarettes, and people would get sicker at a greater rate. I urge the FDA to see vaping and nicotine lozenges as a cancer risk-free alternative to cigarettes.
I suspect Dr. Proctor has never been a smoker himself, and I doubt he has much experience studying addiction, because there is no such thing as a level of nicotine per cigarette that is free from the risk of addiction. The FDA simply wants an achievable path to shutting down big tobacco. But ironically, tobacco companies could end up selling even more packs of cigarettes, and people would get sicker at a greater rate. I urge the FDA to see vaping and nicotine lozenges as a cancer risk-free alternative to cigarettes.
30
What you are referring to has been studied in great detail. It actually doesn't happen when nicotine in reduced to the extremely low, non-addictive levels that the FDA is talking about. There is no way this will sell more cigarettes for Big Tobacco. This is a fantastic step in moving consumers off cigarettes to less harmful nicotine products.
As a former smoker, I had the same reaction as you. Besides that, if people want to kill themselves, who are we to stop them? I say that somewhat facetiously, but when I still smoked, no one could convince me to quit. I had to convince myself that I was in charge, not the cigarettes, and I deserved to live.
Actually, because the tobacco has essentially no nicotine in it, it is not possible to gain more nicotine from smoking more of these type of cigarettes. It's like drinking non-alcoholic beer. Sure, there's a trace amount of alcohol in non-alcoholic beer, but drinking six O'Doul's still won't get you drunk. There's simply not enough nicotine in these cigarettes to make it possible, and many research studies have shown that people do not do this when exposed to these types of cigarettes. See Donny et al. (2015) in the New England Journal of Medicine, for an example. That said, the FDA is touting e-cigs as a safer alternative for those who want to continue using nicotine in some form.
Please stop trying to save people from themselves. Where there is a will, there is a way. Focus on prevention, yes. Restrict advertising, yes. Tax them to pay for health costs, yes. But for those people who decide for themselves that smoking is still worth the risk, who are you to force them onto another path? How many great novels won't be written by smokers now? Isn't this supposed to be a free country?
24
The ills of cigarettes extend beyond the smoker. Secondhand smoke is a killer. The cost of medical care for smokers as they inevitably pay the price is a cost for all of us.
I'm astonished to learn that the FDA is prohibited from banning cigarettes altogether. It would be interesting to know precisely how and why this order was passed. This serves only the interests of cigarette manufacturers and is clearly counter to the interests of the people our government is supposed to represent.
I'm astonished to learn that the FDA is prohibited from banning cigarettes altogether. It would be interesting to know precisely how and why this order was passed. This serves only the interests of cigarette manufacturers and is clearly counter to the interests of the people our government is supposed to represent.
1
If you loved someone who was hooked on cigarettes you would not be so callous. Ask any alcoholic that quits drinking, and they will tell you that it was not that hard, but they still have a pack of cigarettes they cannot put down. Why not make it easier for smokers to walk away from something that causes them to cough, wheeze and hack their way into each and every day. And their lifelong addiction models dangerous behavior for their children and grandchildren. My advice: Don't be so self righteous.
"Please stop trying to save people from themselves. ...Tax them to pay for health costs, yes."
But a working-class addict's taxes don't cover something as expensive as lung cancer treatment. Thanks to Medicaid and Medicare and Obamacare, responsible people end up paying those lung cancer bills.
"Isn't this supposed to be a free country?"
Hear, hear. I should be allowed to do whatever I want, and you shouldn't be required to pay for my stupid choices.
But a working-class addict's taxes don't cover something as expensive as lung cancer treatment. Thanks to Medicaid and Medicare and Obamacare, responsible people end up paying those lung cancer bills.
"Isn't this supposed to be a free country?"
Hear, hear. I should be allowed to do whatever I want, and you shouldn't be required to pay for my stupid choices.
I wish manufacturers would sell cigarettes with different levels of nicotine, like the nicotine patches. I think it might make it possible to wean myself off of them, in a tolerable way.
1
This will not work and may be collusion between the tobacco companies and the FDA. Nicotine is addictive. Smoking cigarettes to some is "cooler" than nicotine vapor. For those who smoke, the tobacco companies benefit by people smoking more to get the same hit. I have never smoked. But the positive effects on concentration, focus, calmness are undeniable. Better to use this drug by vapor.
6
A surprise, and props, to a Trump appointee.
1
Humm, a tough call. The administration will have to do some quick research to find out how many of Trump's fan-boys are smokers. If the results show that many of them are, Dr. Gottlieb might find himself looking for another job.
1
This could do more to reduce US cancer deaths than anything NCI is likely to accomplish in the next 20 to 30years. Hard to even begin to calculate the health and financial benefits. (Not to mention the BILLION lives that cigarettes are expected to take in this century.)
We've lived with the insanity of cigarettes for so long we're actually used to it. BRAVO to this move.
If the Trump administration pulls this off, he may win the Nobel prize in medicine!
We've lived with the insanity of cigarettes for so long we're actually used to it. BRAVO to this move.
If the Trump administration pulls this off, he may win the Nobel prize in medicine!
6
What if the cigarette makers shifted their considerable resources into sustainable energy and sold us life instead of death sticks?
4
That is not how anything works. They are good at making cigarettes and that is it. They won't suddenly be good at sustainable energy.
4
Plus cigarettes are addictive, legal, highly profitable and provide tax income for both state and federal governments. Their adverse health consequences help keep our healthcare bill at 17% of GNP. This is not a equal opportunity tragedy : most smokers in America come from the lowest two socioeconomic quintiles.
1
How anyone would want to inhale smoke from any source is beyond my understanding. The only reason I can think of why smoking has not been outlawed is payments due to politicians (bribery). With all the recent talk about health care, I feel that if one smokes, one should have to pay 10 times as much in insurance premiums, since smoking is the cause of so many national health problems (even among non-smokers).
3
Perhaps we need to regulate the concentration of alcohol to a level where no-one can get impaired enough to cause traffic accidents.
Perhaps we need laws limiting the amount of fat and sugar in foods.
Maybe we need laws regulating guns to the point where they can't eject a damaging bullet.
Perhaps cars should be limited to a speed of 20 mph or so.
Perhaps we need laws limiting the amount of fat and sugar in foods.
Maybe we need laws regulating guns to the point where they can't eject a damaging bullet.
Perhaps cars should be limited to a speed of 20 mph or so.
20
Perhaps we need laws requiring sprinkler systems in public buildings.
Maybe we need laws that say cars must come with seat belts, air bags, collapsible steering wheels, and shatter resistance glass.
Perhaps we need laws prohibiting asbestos in consumer products.
Maybe doctors shouldn't prescribe thalidomide for morning sickness.
Maybe we need laws that say cars must come with seat belts, air bags, collapsible steering wheels, and shatter resistance glass.
Perhaps we need laws prohibiting asbestos in consumer products.
Maybe doctors shouldn't prescribe thalidomide for morning sickness.
1
Half a million fatalities in 2017 is higher than what happened in Syria. after several years of war. What a tragedy. We strongly support the FDA efforts to stop this massacre.
Shame on you, tobacco industry shareholders for all those past years of profitability.
Shame on you, tobacco industry shareholders for all those past years of profitability.
1
Two of Dr. Proctor's statements cluelessly defeat his and other anti-smokers' entire argument:
1. "Reducing it [...] would make addiction virtually impossible. Kids might start smoking, but they wouldn’t have trouble quitting."
2. "And people would still be able to buy cigarettes. But the important point is that they would also be able to quit at will. Smoking would return to being a matter of free choice."
---------------
1. But why would they quit if they start smoking? You'd think that his argument would be that after trying one or two cigarettes they wouldn't bother with more. But no, I infer that people will still smoke... until they don't want to anymore. That's quite a difference in the advocate's world of "tobacco-free society." It also implies that people will enjoy a cigarette for something other than the nicotine.
2. "Return to"? Has any anti-smoker ever said smoking was "a matter of free choice" at any time in history? Regardless, see #1, but also his statement removes the entire anti-smoker premise that they have to intervene in our lives because "they can't help themselves." This will remove their alibi for interference from the equation.
As a smokers' rights advocate I think I'm all for it because it will prove once and for all how wrong they have been that smokers are nothing but addicted stooges of the tobacco industry when people keep smoking. Because like a cup of caffeinated coffee there's pleasure in the coffee, not the caffeine.
1. "Reducing it [...] would make addiction virtually impossible. Kids might start smoking, but they wouldn’t have trouble quitting."
2. "And people would still be able to buy cigarettes. But the important point is that they would also be able to quit at will. Smoking would return to being a matter of free choice."
---------------
1. But why would they quit if they start smoking? You'd think that his argument would be that after trying one or two cigarettes they wouldn't bother with more. But no, I infer that people will still smoke... until they don't want to anymore. That's quite a difference in the advocate's world of "tobacco-free society." It also implies that people will enjoy a cigarette for something other than the nicotine.
2. "Return to"? Has any anti-smoker ever said smoking was "a matter of free choice" at any time in history? Regardless, see #1, but also his statement removes the entire anti-smoker premise that they have to intervene in our lives because "they can't help themselves." This will remove their alibi for interference from the equation.
As a smokers' rights advocate I think I'm all for it because it will prove once and for all how wrong they have been that smokers are nothing but addicted stooges of the tobacco industry when people keep smoking. Because like a cup of caffeinated coffee there's pleasure in the coffee, not the caffeine.
2
With the decrease in nicotine, you can continue to enjoy your proverbial cup of coffee. Surely, this is good news on your mission to prove that some people will continue to fill their lungs with tar and formaldehyde as a virtue of choice, rather than addiction! I look forward to you being right.
That said, having worked in organ transplantation and lung surgeries, and now having front row seat to my own father's slow march to death due to tobacco, I know that this measure will save many lives, and protect many broken hearts.
I'm sure you would like to think that your bold advocacy and brazen disregard for the facts will somehow render you impenetrable to the effects of cigarettes, but rest assured, it will not. My I-roll-my-own-cigarettes swashbuckling, brilliant, awesome Dad has suffered so many mini strokes his Mensa-intelligence no longer remembers how he ended up in end stage kidney failure or when he could no longer live alone. When you bear witness to such loss, or are yourself that man staring at a dialysis machine, I hope you just as boldly proclaim the choice you made to get yourself there.
As for the rest of us, any chance we could be spared cigarette smoke is a reason to breathe easier.
That said, having worked in organ transplantation and lung surgeries, and now having front row seat to my own father's slow march to death due to tobacco, I know that this measure will save many lives, and protect many broken hearts.
I'm sure you would like to think that your bold advocacy and brazen disregard for the facts will somehow render you impenetrable to the effects of cigarettes, but rest assured, it will not. My I-roll-my-own-cigarettes swashbuckling, brilliant, awesome Dad has suffered so many mini strokes his Mensa-intelligence no longer remembers how he ended up in end stage kidney failure or when he could no longer live alone. When you bear witness to such loss, or are yourself that man staring at a dialysis machine, I hope you just as boldly proclaim the choice you made to get yourself there.
As for the rest of us, any chance we could be spared cigarette smoke is a reason to breathe easier.
Well Audrey ... why not give it a try personally? Just soak tobacco in a large excess of warm water for 24 hours or more, discard the water (make sure nothing drinks it, that much nicotine is very poisonous), dry the tobacco. This process has been done for centuries to make "shisha:" hookah tobacco (not all shisha is low nicotine, but some are).
Then how much will you smoke? If you chose to get your nicotine another way, then you would only smoke for the pleasure of the smoke itself ... whatever that is to you.
Would you smoke as much? Bet not.... but try it and find out.
Then how much will you smoke? If you chose to get your nicotine another way, then you would only smoke for the pleasure of the smoke itself ... whatever that is to you.
Would you smoke as much? Bet not.... but try it and find out.
1
This has the potential to be a great disaster. People who were previously afraid to start smoking may do so now because "nicotine in cigarettes would be set at a level so low that smokers would not be able to extract enough to create or sustain addiction". Which i find laughable. This is like saying that using lower doses of heroine will not get you addicted.
This is extremely dangerous.
This is extremely dangerous.
7
Thank God we have a new drug that in a very short time will we legalized to smoke everywhere. Marijuana. Just think, 4 new agencies, or 4 new huge departments of present agencies to regulate every aspect of a drug that is inhaled and the smoke held deep in the lungs. What could go wrong?
The good news is that it will be wide open to never ending lawsuits, and never ending farm subsidies for growing the cash crop.
The good news is that it will be wide open to never ending lawsuits, and never ending farm subsidies for growing the cash crop.
1
So what is the rationale for allowing an addictive agent like nicotine to be sold in a non-tobacco containing delivery system, except as a bridge away from tobacco? Tar is enemy #1, but do we still sanction - and perhaps expand - the sale of an addictive agent?
1
The nicotine is far less of a heath problem than the tobacco smoke.
Caffeine is mildly addictive. Are you arguing that caffeine must be banned simply because it is addictive?
Caffeine is mildly addictive. Are you arguing that caffeine must be banned simply because it is addictive?
1
'Reducing nicotine in cigarettes so that they are “minimally or nonaddictive,” [mr. gottlieb] asserted, “is a cornerstone of our new and more comprehensive approach to effective tobacco regulation.”'
manufacturers of nicotine vaporizers should love this. liquids used in nicotine vaporizers can have various concentrations of nicotine (and sometimes no nicotine), but often the concentrations are lower than in tobacco cigarettes.
tobacco companies may get their wish one day, although they might switch to selling vaporizers. then regulatory complexities will shift to a somewhat similar yet fundamentally different product, in part because this new product has not been studied to death (pun intended).
also, remember that tobacco is a global phenomenon (but its use has been declining in the US for decades), and many countries have tried to follow the american protocol to try to reduce addictive tobacco consumption.
p.s. it's interesting that the food and _drug_ administration has jurisdiction over this issue, not the DEA or the bureau of ATF.
manufacturers of nicotine vaporizers should love this. liquids used in nicotine vaporizers can have various concentrations of nicotine (and sometimes no nicotine), but often the concentrations are lower than in tobacco cigarettes.
tobacco companies may get their wish one day, although they might switch to selling vaporizers. then regulatory complexities will shift to a somewhat similar yet fundamentally different product, in part because this new product has not been studied to death (pun intended).
also, remember that tobacco is a global phenomenon (but its use has been declining in the US for decades), and many countries have tried to follow the american protocol to try to reduce addictive tobacco consumption.
p.s. it's interesting that the food and _drug_ administration has jurisdiction over this issue, not the DEA or the bureau of ATF.
Another "smoke screen" . . . the tobacco industry is the perfect metaphor for human nature. Despite it being an incredibly repugnant and disgusting endeavor, it is also profoundly unhealthy and dangerous to users but, gosh, there is just so much darn money to made! Why are we humans so evil?
I think is ludicrous to drain 99% of the nicotine from cigarettes all at once. Can't we try something/experiment incrementally? I do agree that we can try reducing nicotine and learn how this works. If a 50% reduction reduces smoking perhaps we could then go further, but all we need is another big black market. Like the frog in the pot of water...turn the heat up slowly.
2
A 50% reduction will not reduce smoking or harm, it will increase it. People will simply smoke twice as much to get their nicotine.
The point of this is not actually reducing nicotine intake -- people can get nicotine other ways. it is to wean them off smoking as a way to get their nicotine.
The point of this is not actually reducing nicotine intake -- people can get nicotine other ways. it is to wean them off smoking as a way to get their nicotine.
2
This is a terrible idea. I don't trust the science behind the concept of a minimally addictive nicotine exposure. Doesn't anyone remember what happened to smokers who switched from Reds to Lights in the 80s?? It was a public health disaster. And expect unintended consequences for this experiment with effectively banning nicotine in combustible form. Will banning it in vapes and gums follow? Such short-sighted, science-deficient nonsense! Nicotine is a powerful - and SAFE - drug, the benefits of which speak for themselves given how many people get "addicted." If anyone were really serious about the public health threat of smoking, we'd be working on transitioning from combustible to non-combustible delivery. But no! e-cigs are BAD! Maybe the biggest threat to public health is the puritanism surrounding nicotine.
8
"Kids might start smoking, but they wouldn’t have trouble quitting". Many youngsters simply don't want to quit a habit they know can eventually kill them. The "sophistication" of smoking and being cool is also rooted in peer pressure. There is no merit in smoking cigarettes at all, whether they are nicotine-free or not. Nicotine addiction, like cocaine or heroin, is a disgusting habit. I seriously doubt that people will "be able to quit at will". Any reformed smoker will tell you that a nicotine-free cigarette is fool's gold.
1
Why anyone would want to smoke after all of the horrible cancer commercials graphically showing the dangers of such is a total mystery to me. As for any addiction: ask your physician for a patch, etc. to quit. People do irreparable damage to their lungs. They smoke for over ten years and think they will have no repercussions; COPD, chronic, obstructive, pulmonary, disease.
1
You sound like someone who has never experienced the pleasures of addiction.
Impossible to describe until you have experienced it.
Impossible to describe until you have experienced it.
For some, because they like it and the short-term benefits outweigh the long-term consequences to them at that moment. Nicotine is a psycho-active substance that is truly a revelation for some..
Non-smokers frequently (seemingly always) assume that smokers are idiots and that the non-smokers' cost-benefit analysis is the only correct one.
I've been off cigarettes for over 15 years now, but the fact that non-smokers have little trouble dismissing any views that smokers have, or possibility that there may be a reason for their behavior, still bothers me like I was still one of them. I was a smarter, faster, sharper person while I smoked - hands down/no question. There's research backing up improved cognitive functioning while on nicotine. The health risks were too much for me to continue long-term, and so I've reluctantly accepted my dumbed down real self. I'm happy that I was able to make that decision myself rather than have everyone else make it for me for my "benefit".
I hope that the FDA decides to reduce caffeine to non-addictive levels as well while they're at it. That way people will have the choice whether or not to consume caffeinated beverages/products, unlike now. That's unlikely to happen given the numbers though - smokers are easy because they are a minority who the majority has no trouble viewing with complete paternalism.
Non-smokers frequently (seemingly always) assume that smokers are idiots and that the non-smokers' cost-benefit analysis is the only correct one.
I've been off cigarettes for over 15 years now, but the fact that non-smokers have little trouble dismissing any views that smokers have, or possibility that there may be a reason for their behavior, still bothers me like I was still one of them. I was a smarter, faster, sharper person while I smoked - hands down/no question. There's research backing up improved cognitive functioning while on nicotine. The health risks were too much for me to continue long-term, and so I've reluctantly accepted my dumbed down real self. I'm happy that I was able to make that decision myself rather than have everyone else make it for me for my "benefit".
I hope that the FDA decides to reduce caffeine to non-addictive levels as well while they're at it. That way people will have the choice whether or not to consume caffeinated beverages/products, unlike now. That's unlikely to happen given the numbers though - smokers are easy because they are a minority who the majority has no trouble viewing with complete paternalism.
16
Smarter, sharper.. really? Dude you were 15 years younger don't forget.
1
"Smoking would return to being a matter of free choice."
The double speak of this statement amidst a call for reducing consumer access to cigarettes of their choice is rather amusing.
Despite the good intentions, it's foolish to try to save people from their own bad decisions.
The double speak of this statement amidst a call for reducing consumer access to cigarettes of their choice is rather amusing.
Despite the good intentions, it's foolish to try to save people from their own bad decisions.
4
So if it's foolish to try and save people from their own bad decisions, there should be no attempt to use narcan to revive people who OD on heroin/opioids, right?
In the interests of disclosure, I am a refractory and probably incorrigible smoker of cigars. I doubt that lowering of the nicotine content in smoking, snuffing, and chewing tobacco would lower the consumption. It may have an opposite effect: all the tobacco smokers of good will engage in this activity not to inhale and exhale pure air without teeth, but to feel the nicotine bite.
1
I predict a lot of do-gooder head scratching when smokers double down and smoke more not less. This is what happens when policy is developed in a hermetically sealed think tank. Anyone who has smoked or knows smokers is familiar with switching to loose tobacco and rolling your own beginning when taxes started to go up. There will be an end run for this and it will end up a worse health threat to the user. Either smoke more of these low nicotine cigarettes to satisfy the craving or get the desired effect, smoke filterless hand rolled cigarettes, find standard strength imported cigarettes, or some combination. Proctor notes that it’s the other chemical compounds in the smoke that cause cancer so it follows smoking more will increase the risk not reduce it. Also there is that pesky high cost for low income smokers that is now about to go up elbowing out other necessary expenses.
16
Nicotine may be the most useful substance in cigarettes, and surprisingly has some health benefits. I's the other additives (and the fact you burn the cigarette) that's the problem.
5
Good God! Why hasn't any of our governments done this before. Of course, $$$, the lobby. I sure love our democracy but it has HUGE holes in it need fixing. Talk about the privileged few and the stacked deck. How many millions have died prematurely so investors in tobacco stocks and their executives could get super rich? I am so happy to hear Trump's administration finally doing something great but the idea that it took this long is maddening. Think of the total effort we put into winning WW2. Now realize more people died too soon from smoking than in the war and ask yourself: who makes the priorities? The tobacco industry managed to make smoking seem glamours and elegant while they knew people were dying brutal deaths from cancer and heart disease. Even a empathetic president like FDR fell for it, as I did as a young man.
1
I smoked for 28 years. When I changed to filter cigarettes I doubled the number of weeds I smoked each day. That is what this simple-minded idea will do for the addicted. BTW, I am 90 years old. I have congestive heart failure and carry an oxygen supply to ease my COPD.
1
An addict here. I smoked three packs a day for twenty years and quite cold turkey. The hardest thing I have ever done in my life. After twenty years of no cigarettes I know I am still a tobacco addict. Anyone who tells you that nicotine is not addictive is a liar. If I put anything with tobacco in my mouth today i know that I would be back to square one.
15
I applaud the F.D.A. for making this hugely important public health move. I wonder if the whinging from the tobacco belt will put a stop to actually implementing this - Big Tobacco's business model relies on creating new addicts - but in the meantime find myself in the tremendously odd position of wholly supporting a Trump-era administrative move.
What's next? Cats sleeping with dogs? The world has gone topsy-turvy!
What's next? Cats sleeping with dogs? The world has gone topsy-turvy!
1
This should have been done LONG AGO.
It is an embarrassing shame to chronicle the lobbying influence of Big Tobacco on the U.S. government.
And think back to the days of actual SUBSIDIES to tobacco states and tobacco growers.
We can also hang our heads in shame at Big Tobacco's DUMPING of enormous amounts of cigarettes to areas outside the United States—like Asia—as the U.S. market continues to shrink.
A physician MD
It is an embarrassing shame to chronicle the lobbying influence of Big Tobacco on the U.S. government.
And think back to the days of actual SUBSIDIES to tobacco states and tobacco growers.
We can also hang our heads in shame at Big Tobacco's DUMPING of enormous amounts of cigarettes to areas outside the United States—like Asia—as the U.S. market continues to shrink.
A physician MD
2
Assuming liquid (diluted) nicotine remains on the market, it shouldn't be too difficult to dose cigarettes at home -- an eyedropper or perhaps, a syringe.
1
I really question the reasoning here. The danger of tobacco is in the tar and various nasty chemicals in the tobacco. As far as I have read, nicotine itself is not overly harmful - another stimulant, like caffeine, but not some horror
show from a health perspective.
And yet, if a smoker physically expects dose X of nicotine, and if he has to smoke more, lower-nicotine-infused cigarettes to reach dose X, will he not necessarily smoke MORE cigarettes and inhale the tar and other horrible ingredients to a greater degree? In what way is this an improvement?
show from a health perspective.
And yet, if a smoker physically expects dose X of nicotine, and if he has to smoke more, lower-nicotine-infused cigarettes to reach dose X, will he not necessarily smoke MORE cigarettes and inhale the tar and other horrible ingredients to a greater degree? In what way is this an improvement?
19
Replying to your last statement:
No, a smoker will not smoke more to get the same dose of nicotine. As mentioned in the article, they wil lower the amount of nicotin to a non-addictive amount. This can be anything between a 10 or 100-fold reduction.
Thus, if one used to smoke 20 cigaretts/day before, he'd have to smoke at least 200 cigaretts after the nicotine reduction, which is, for most people, physically and financially impossible.
Smokers may increase the quantity of cigaretts consumed/day initially. However, they will soon realise that they don't get the nicotine-satisfaction from cigaretts anymore and switch to alternative, less harmful nicotine-sources.
No, a smoker will not smoke more to get the same dose of nicotine. As mentioned in the article, they wil lower the amount of nicotin to a non-addictive amount. This can be anything between a 10 or 100-fold reduction.
Thus, if one used to smoke 20 cigaretts/day before, he'd have to smoke at least 200 cigaretts after the nicotine reduction, which is, for most people, physically and financially impossible.
Smokers may increase the quantity of cigaretts consumed/day initially. However, they will soon realise that they don't get the nicotine-satisfaction from cigaretts anymore and switch to alternative, less harmful nicotine-sources.
Nicotine isn't particularly harmful, but it is highly addictive. The idea is that by reducing nicotine to almost nonexistent levels, it will be impossible for smokers to reach their expected dose of nicotine through conventional smoking and will have to switch to a safer alternative. If you had to choose between smoking 100 cigarettes or using an e-cigarette to get your desired amount of nicotine, the choice seems pretty easy.
But I suspect this isn't really about current smokers - this is about stopping future generations from smoking. In a way they are sacrificing the current generation of smokers for the greater good of our country's health. As someone who started smoking at 15 and smoked for almost a decade before quitting, I think this is a great idea and wish it had happened a long time ago.
But I suspect this isn't really about current smokers - this is about stopping future generations from smoking. In a way they are sacrificing the current generation of smokers for the greater good of our country's health. As someone who started smoking at 15 and smoked for almost a decade before quitting, I think this is a great idea and wish it had happened a long time ago.
1
I smoked Marlboro Lights here in the US from age 19 through age 43, less than half a pack a day. On my trips to Europe during that time, I noticed distinctly that the European version of Marlboro Lights was much less addictive. I was satisfied with two or three cigs a day. I read that the American version had many more addictive additives in addition to nicotine. American tobacco was enhancing the addictive chemicals in their products. Thank god I quit 17 years ago.
20
That is a weird interpretation of your travel smoking habits. You make it sound like you instantly ceased to be addicted when you left the US, and started a new addiction with a clean slate in Europe.
The more obvious interpretation would be that the cigarettes you smoked in Europe contained substantially more nicotine than the ones you smoked in the US.
Nicotine levels are known to vary wildly between brands, even within the US.
The more obvious interpretation would be that the cigarettes you smoked in Europe contained substantially more nicotine than the ones you smoked in the US.
Nicotine levels are known to vary wildly between brands, even within the US.
A government requirement to reduce nicotine in cigarettes is well-intentioned but seriously misguided. Every legal ban on harmful substances has lead to an increase in organized crime -- alcohol (prohibition and its failure), pot, amphetamines, cocaine, heroin, etc. Why would restricting nicotine in cigarettes be any different?
I am a lifelong non-smoker, and I have seen friends and relatives killed and/or injured by smoking. So I do not write as an apologist for tobacco or smoking. Our country has made remarkable progress in reducing smoking through public education and a variety of programs. We should continue all the programs we have to discourage smoking, but government required reduction in nicotine will almost certainly do more harm than good.
If nicotine in cigarettes is reduced to non-addictive levels, addicts will seek other means -- legal or not -- to satisfy their addiction? Perhaps FDA just sees an established industry which it can regulate at the drop of a pin. Instead it will spawn an underground industry in contraband cigarettes and further undermine respect for law. Or, worse, criminals will find new ways to spike their non-addictive cigarettes with new more harmful forms of nicotine.
Best to stick with today's approach which is showing a lot of success.
I am a lifelong non-smoker, and I have seen friends and relatives killed and/or injured by smoking. So I do not write as an apologist for tobacco or smoking. Our country has made remarkable progress in reducing smoking through public education and a variety of programs. We should continue all the programs we have to discourage smoking, but government required reduction in nicotine will almost certainly do more harm than good.
If nicotine in cigarettes is reduced to non-addictive levels, addicts will seek other means -- legal or not -- to satisfy their addiction? Perhaps FDA just sees an established industry which it can regulate at the drop of a pin. Instead it will spawn an underground industry in contraband cigarettes and further undermine respect for law. Or, worse, criminals will find new ways to spike their non-addictive cigarettes with new more harmful forms of nicotine.
Best to stick with today's approach which is showing a lot of success.
5
You miss the point. The other substances you mention cause harm when they are used. The harms associated with nicotine use are similar to the risks associated with caffeine.
It's the smoke from combustion tobacco (and other additives from the tobacco companies) that account for 95% of the risk of smoking. If nicotine users imbibe without smoking the cost in terms of both lives and finances is radically reduced.
It's the smoke from combustion tobacco (and other additives from the tobacco companies) that account for 95% of the risk of smoking. If nicotine users imbibe without smoking the cost in terms of both lives and finances is radically reduced.
16
I am a board certified Addiction specialist with 20 plus years of experience and this idea lacks common sense and will financially burden the people who chose to smoke despite knowing all ill effects. This is to benefit Tobacco industry and Government in taxes.
People will smoke more to reach the desire effects and soot is the one which is more dangerous than nicotine otherwise we would not have been selling all these Nicotine gums/patches/lozenges and inhalers.
Use of lite Beer(Alcohol Content) has not eliminated or reduced use of Vodka.
We have a intellectually light President and our policy makers are also exhibiting superficially appealing solutions which will produce opposite results
People will smoke more to reach the desire effects and soot is the one which is more dangerous than nicotine otherwise we would not have been selling all these Nicotine gums/patches/lozenges and inhalers.
Use of lite Beer(Alcohol Content) has not eliminated or reduced use of Vodka.
We have a intellectually light President and our policy makers are also exhibiting superficially appealing solutions which will produce opposite results
20
You miss the point... no matter how much you smoke you won't reach addictive levels. That's what is key here; read the article again, mate. Try not being the expert.
1
I think this is exactly backwards. The world needs low-tar, high-nicotine cigarettes, not the opposite. Nicotine, the substance smokers want, while quite addictive, isn't terribly malignant. Nicotine caps make about as much sense as does limiting the alcohol content of whiskey.
As sort of an aside, it has always irritated me that cigarette manufacturers do not disclose the actual content of their products. Most cigarettes contain hundreds of additives. At a minimum, their complete and transparent disclosure should be legally mandated, just like the ingredients of processed food. I have long suspected that the reason that extant low-tar cigarettes aren't as easy on one's health as they should be is that manufacturers pump up the additives to compensate. It's also likely that if people saw the chemical soup they are ingesting, they would smoke less or not at all.
As sort of an aside, it has always irritated me that cigarette manufacturers do not disclose the actual content of their products. Most cigarettes contain hundreds of additives. At a minimum, their complete and transparent disclosure should be legally mandated, just like the ingredients of processed food. I have long suspected that the reason that extant low-tar cigarettes aren't as easy on one's health as they should be is that manufacturers pump up the additives to compensate. It's also likely that if people saw the chemical soup they are ingesting, they would smoke less or not at all.
43
The world has that already in a sense, the "vape" or electronic cigarettes deliver pure nicotine in water vapor and consumers can pick which level of nicotine they want. I was able to quit smoking thanks to using vapes.
I do agree the lack of information regarding additives in cigarettes should be illegal and can't believe it is still allowed to this day.
I do agree the lack of information regarding additives in cigarettes should be illegal and can't believe it is still allowed to this day.
1
Thank you for all of these suggestions, TImothy. It's criminal (or should be) that companies are not required to reveal on the packaging anything we ingest. This should be true of cigarettes, and should also be true of cosmetics, in my opinion. Who knows what goes into a lipstick, say, that is absorbed in small amounts into the body.
I am guessing that the only reason these companies--tobacco and cosmetics--aren't required to reveal their ingredients comes down to the same thing that applies to many aspects of our government today: the politicians are in the pockets of the companies themselves.
Meanwhile, I don't believe for one second that smokers are getting sick (on the scale they do) from nicotine itself. It's the smoke, and all of the toxic additives used by the companies.
I am guessing that the only reason these companies--tobacco and cosmetics--aren't required to reveal their ingredients comes down to the same thing that applies to many aspects of our government today: the politicians are in the pockets of the companies themselves.
Meanwhile, I don't believe for one second that smokers are getting sick (on the scale they do) from nicotine itself. It's the smoke, and all of the toxic additives used by the companies.
2
Mr. Murphy,
Tar in cigarettes serves to transport nicotine into the bloodstream. Unfortunately, smokers of low-tar cigarettes have been shown to compensate by smoking more:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2901853/
Tar in cigarettes serves to transport nicotine into the bloodstream. Unfortunately, smokers of low-tar cigarettes have been shown to compensate by smoking more:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2901853/
1
> Reducing nicotine in cigarettes so that they are “minimally or nonaddictive,”
I recall years ago the tobacco industry introduced 'Lite' cigarettes that were supposed to be more healthy than regular cigarettes. However people ended up just smoking more cigarettes.
Is it really possible to have a non-addictive level of nicotine in cigarettes? It sounds a bit like having "a non-addictive level of heroin".
I recall years ago the tobacco industry introduced 'Lite' cigarettes that were supposed to be more healthy than regular cigarettes. However people ended up just smoking more cigarettes.
Is it really possible to have a non-addictive level of nicotine in cigarettes? It sounds a bit like having "a non-addictive level of heroin".
11
Anyone who has witnessed the last 5 years of a smoker's life can probably appreciate this. But when nicotine is outlawed, only outlaws will have nicotine. American entrepreneurship will prevail. Legally or otherwise.
2
Very tricky to have two statements-
"Cigarettes with nonaddictive nicotine levels would be radically different from what used to be known as “low tar” or “light” cigarettes, marketing gimmicks now barred by law." and
"Philip Morris even rolled out three brands of cigarettes from which 97 percent of the nicotine had been removed — Merit De-Nic, Benson & Hedges De-Nic and Next. "
So 97% removal of nicotine to your non-addictive level is a marketing gimmick when industry does it and a wonderful thing when FDA does it?
"Cigarettes with nonaddictive nicotine levels would be radically different from what used to be known as “low tar” or “light” cigarettes, marketing gimmicks now barred by law." and
"Philip Morris even rolled out three brands of cigarettes from which 97 percent of the nicotine had been removed — Merit De-Nic, Benson & Hedges De-Nic and Next. "
So 97% removal of nicotine to your non-addictive level is a marketing gimmick when industry does it and a wonderful thing when FDA does it?
7
Low tar and light cigarettes were not "low nicotine" cigarettes - I thought that was pretty clear in the article. In fact there was nothing really "light" about them. The low nicotine cigarettes they used to produce didn't sell well, and were manufactured before the tobacco companies had admitted to the dangers of smoking - so for obvious reasons folks didn't purchase them. I think it is a great idea to remove as much nicotine as possible - then the physical addiction piece is removed, and it would likely be far easier for people to quit, or not get hooked in the first place.
12
Nowhere in the op-ed did its author state that 97% removal of nicotine to your non-addictive level is a marketing gimmick when the industry does it. He did state that "the industry's campaign to deny all evidence of harm precluded an advertising campaign highlighting the benefits of these new [non-addictive] products."
This is interesting to consider in the context of "e-cigarettes," and the legal matters surrounding their sale and use. I began smoking in college, and continued for two years. By the end of that time, I was on a pack a day of Marlboro Reds. I knew I needed to quit, and knew that I was far too addicted to nicotine to do it.
The existence of nicotine vapor got me off tobacco entirely – I haven't smoked a cigarette since the day I got my first vaping kit, which was seven years ago. I don't doubt there are also health risks involved, but it's hard to believe they're worse than the inevitable diseases caused by smoking tobacco.
I'm all for the idea of making cigarettes less addictive, but I strongly suspect this would have terrible consequences for current smokers, whose obvious course of action as addicts would simply be increasing the number of cigarettes they smoke per day.
The existence of nicotine vapor got me off tobacco entirely – I haven't smoked a cigarette since the day I got my first vaping kit, which was seven years ago. I don't doubt there are also health risks involved, but it's hard to believe they're worse than the inevitable diseases caused by smoking tobacco.
I'm all for the idea of making cigarettes less addictive, but I strongly suspect this would have terrible consequences for current smokers, whose obvious course of action as addicts would simply be increasing the number of cigarettes they smoke per day.
29
I too was smoker - 30 years - and tried innumerable times to quit, but was only successful 5 years ago with e-cigs.
The idea of reducing nicotine in cigarettes may in fact do more harm than good. As the article notes, nicotine, while addictive, is far from the most harmful ingredient in cigarettes. So if reducing nicotine leads to addicts smoking more cigarettes with all the other chemicals and tars intact...isn't this increasing the health risk for smokers?
The idea of reducing nicotine in cigarettes may in fact do more harm than good. As the article notes, nicotine, while addictive, is far from the most harmful ingredient in cigarettes. So if reducing nicotine leads to addicts smoking more cigarettes with all the other chemicals and tars intact...isn't this increasing the health risk for smokers?
36
Vaping has been found to be just as damaging as regular cigarettes. There are several studies - of course the history is not long enough to start counting bodies.
As far as reducing nicotine - I think it might work - I also quit smoking after college - but I just tapered, (no vaping then). Smoking a cigarette here and there until I lost interest. This doesn't work for everyone, but it is much easier to taper than go "cold turkey."
As far as reducing nicotine - I think it might work - I also quit smoking after college - but I just tapered, (no vaping then). Smoking a cigarette here and there until I lost interest. This doesn't work for everyone, but it is much easier to taper than go "cold turkey."
4
I keep an eye on current data about vaping that comes from reputable sources, and the findings are actually quite murky.
Health organizations have gone out of their way to emphasize the potential risks, but that's fueled almost entirely by concerns about non-smokers picking up the habit. I agree with the sentiment, but hyper-focus on that demographic is skewing public perception of the issue. The US surgeon general's report from last December, for instance, firmly condemned e-cigarettes... and failed to compare data about the risks of vaping with those of smoking. The truth is that we still have very limited information on the subject, and unfortunately, a lot of smokers now believe that the two things are equally bad for their health.
I mean, the CDC has claimed there's no merit to the idea that vaping can help smokers quit – yet someone else who responded to my comment here used vaping to do exactly that! I've encountered dozens of others who have had similar success. It just breaks my heart to think of the countless millions who might never give it a shot, when the stakes are literally life or death. All we know for sure is that cigarettes absolutely, positively WILL kill you – so for those who simply cannot quit, they stand to lose nothing by taking vaping for a spin.
Health organizations have gone out of their way to emphasize the potential risks, but that's fueled almost entirely by concerns about non-smokers picking up the habit. I agree with the sentiment, but hyper-focus on that demographic is skewing public perception of the issue. The US surgeon general's report from last December, for instance, firmly condemned e-cigarettes... and failed to compare data about the risks of vaping with those of smoking. The truth is that we still have very limited information on the subject, and unfortunately, a lot of smokers now believe that the two things are equally bad for their health.
I mean, the CDC has claimed there's no merit to the idea that vaping can help smokers quit – yet someone else who responded to my comment here used vaping to do exactly that! I've encountered dozens of others who have had similar success. It just breaks my heart to think of the countless millions who might never give it a shot, when the stakes are literally life or death. All we know for sure is that cigarettes absolutely, positively WILL kill you – so for those who simply cannot quit, they stand to lose nothing by taking vaping for a spin.
4
Yes do it, but I am one suffering from Chronic Obstructed Pulmonary Disease (COPD) but never smoked cigarettes, rather pipe and occasional cigar; now locked into three different inhalers to stay alive. F.D.A. needs to do the whole trip on tobacco. Thirty years of smoking but no problem stopping when wished to, too late but done forty-five years ago; bless the chemists.
4
Lowering nicotine levels in tobacco will do wonders for public health and go a long way to reducing health insurance costs. In the mean time, the tobacco industry has time to innovate and change over to an even more profitable business. There are edible foods that need planting.
12
Isn't the idea of responsible public policy exactly what Trump et als are trying to destroy?
Reducing nicotine in cigarettes to make them non-addictive sounds like great public policy.
So how can this type of responsible government regulation survive in the age of Trump and Bannon, and their quest to "dismantle the administrative state?
Reducing sugar intake from over-sized soda servings, and requiring healthier foods in schools - were all opposed as somehow "reducing American freedoms".
Where's the policy that limits the application and broadcasting of political spin to sensible public policy, solely meant to further the interests of campaign contributors?
Reducing nicotine in cigarettes to make them non-addictive sounds like great public policy.
So how can this type of responsible government regulation survive in the age of Trump and Bannon, and their quest to "dismantle the administrative state?
Reducing sugar intake from over-sized soda servings, and requiring healthier foods in schools - were all opposed as somehow "reducing American freedoms".
Where's the policy that limits the application and broadcasting of political spin to sensible public policy, solely meant to further the interests of campaign contributors?
3