FDA proposal to lower nicotine in tobacco products

[brewer]

Quote: " FDA is considering taking this action to reduce the level of nicotine in these products so they are minimally addictive or nonaddictive, using the best available science to determine a level that is appropriate for the protection of the public health. FDA is using the term “nonaddictive” in this document specifically in the context of a potentially nonaddictive cigarette. " 

https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspecti...-05345.pdf

Might be to late for me.

[Silver]

It's one expensive habit I never started.

[brewer]

It certainly is a cruel mistress.

[Ravenshire]

Yay. I can just see the poor bastards like me who smoke a pack a day smoking three or four times as much in order to get their fix. It's a stop-gap solution at best and no solution at all at worst. It's not the nicotine that kills, but the carcinogenic compounds carried with it. They would serve the public far better by promoting vaping as a replacement for traditional tobacco products instead of treating vaping as 'just ad bad' as smoking despite at least one study evidencing a harm level 95% lower than traditional tobacco.

Even when our government gets it right, they can't help but fuck up.

[Brian37]

Yay. I can just see the poor bastards like me who smoke a pack a day smoking three or four times as much in order to get their fix. It's a stop-gap solution at best and no solution at all at worst. It's not the nicotine that kills, but the carcinogenic compounds carried with it. They would serve the public far better by promoting vaping as a replacement for traditional tobacco products instead of treating vaping as 'just ad bad' as smoking despite at least one study evidencing a harm level 95% lower than traditional tobacco.

Even when our government gets it right, they can't help but fuck up.

Um no, even with vaping, the FDA really has not been able to collect enough data as to the exact chemicals used in the flavors. I wouldn't claim every product maker uses dangerous stuff, but I also wouldn't put it past the human trait of greed.

I think Australia gets it right. They do not put any adds in the stores, the product brands have no logos on the boxes, but they are given serial numbers like a license plate. The products are kept in nondescript drawers with only the serial number as the label on the drawer. And they use the taxes on the sales to take car of those who end up with health problems as a result. It also helps make it less likely younger people will pick it up as a habit.

I'd bet if that existed when I was a kid, I wouldn't have started as a result of peer pressure, or at least, been less likely to have started.

Vaping is relatively young as a product right now. The vapor itself may not be harmful, but what chemicals are the makers using? Are the companies required to disclose all the ingredients on the packaging? In business law, just like with food  recipes, they don't always have to disclose everything because they don't want their competitors getting their formulas.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/body/vaping/

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/how-safe-is-vaping

https://www.nbcnews.com/better/health/be...ncna819716

The shops and industry of course will say they are safe, yea, of course because you don't want to hurt your profit margin.

At this point the jury is out on vaping, there is no 100% agreement right now. I'd say most of it depends exactly on the chemical formulas of each individual product.

[brewer]

I should probably stop using my butter flavored popcorn bag for huffing PAM. It's just soooooo good though.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I would propose UPPING the nicotine as much as possible, and adding whatever chemicals they can think of to make it as addictive as possible. 

Alternatively, incorporate a lethal dose of cyanide into every smokable, chewable, vapable product imaginable - the smoking cessation rate would skyrocket, and no one would backslide. 

Boru

[Divinity]

Never understood why people smoked cigarettes to begin with. I mean I get once you start, you're addicted. Good luck quitting after that. But why the fuck start? Cigarettes don't even give you a high!

I mean maybe years ago before we knew how dangerous it was, it made sense. "Oh man, I look so cool smoking!" (No, you really fucking don't. If you don't look cool when not smoking, why do you think you'll look cool sticking one of those things in your mouth?) I mean alcohol made more sense. At least it has some effect other than devastating your fucking lungs. Getting an adult to buy you some booze, and then drinking. Yeah, that made sense. These days I'm sure kids have moved on. Probably to weed, but even the cool kids probably think that's lame these days. They're all about the coke and the ecstasy. Or probably some designer drug, how should I know? I'm getting too old to know what the cool kids are into. Probably Sexting if you listen to the news.

In any case, smoking cigarettes is really fucking rude. You're not just giving yourself lung cancer (and without the coal miner benefits), you're giving people around you lung cancer too. Not to mention destroying your teeth and your skin.

Just imagine how much more money you'd have too. Those things are fucking expensive. It's like what $6/pack. If you smoke a pack a day, that's $2,190 a year. You could buy a 50 inch screen tv with that, and have like $1860 left over to buy other shit with.

[brewer]

I would propose UPPING the nicotine as much as possible, and adding whatever chemicals they can think of to make it as addictive as possible. 

Alternatively, incorporate a lethal dose of cyanide into every smokable, chewable, vapable product imaginable - the smoking cessation rate would skyrocket, and no one would backslide. 

Boru

I've thought of that strategy, except I extended it's application.

[RoadRunner79]

Yay. I can just see the poor bastards like me who smoke a pack a day smoking three or four times as much in order to get their fix. It's a stop-gap solution at best and no solution at all at worst. It's not the nicotine that kills, but the carcinogenic compounds carried with it. They would serve the public far better by promoting vaping as a replacement for traditional tobacco products instead of treating vaping as 'just ad bad' as smoking despite at least one study evidencing a harm level 95% lower than traditional tobacco.

Even when our government gets it right, they can't help but fuck up.

I always heard that with light cigarettes.   They where filtering more, but that just meant that you could smoke more, and inhale them deeper; which didn't end up being of real benefit in the end.  I agree, that just limiting the nicotine is probably worse, not better.   Unless they are talking about reduced nicotine cigarettes to help people that want to quit. 

I was able to quit completely by switching to vaping.  Then I was addicted to vaping, but it was easier to cut back the NIC.   I actually quit for a short time, and though I decided that I liked it, and I wanted to vape a little, I am now at 0 nicotine and could quit fairly easily.   Which is good, because tax and spend Gov. Wolfe decided to raise the taxes on vaping to 60% rather than actually govern well.