Cigarette or Drug

**ckc** · 10-30-2009, 01:02 AM

Now this is confusing, the next NRT up and coming is a cigarette?

22nd Century Continuing Development Of Its Smoking Cessation Aid

I'd honestly like to know how that will be remotely acceptable.

**PhiHalcyon** · 10-30-2009, 05:37 AM

I found this to be hilarious. If you want to sell nicotine-free cigarettes, then just do it. If it catches on with people who are trying to quit, and it works for them in this way, then great. People who are trying to quit would obviously have good reason to be attracted to such a cigarette without you explicitly telling them that it is a smoking cessation aid.

The cigarette that insisted on being a drug. Too funny.

**ckc** · 10-30-2009, 09:50 AM

What really got my noodle was all the Anti-Smoking peeps that push approved NRT. This is really going to be a spanner in their works. Surely if it still contains tobacco its not good for you and even worse than our E-Cigs yet it's going through approval.

The first official FDA Approved Cig.I wonder if its fire safe.

**halopunker** · 10-30-2009, 02:36 PM

I'm confused on this whole thing...thought they already made these...you could find them at rite aid and were called 'Quest'. And believe me, just the taste of those cigarette's were enough to make me want to quit. I had trouble even getting through an entire cigarette, but maybe that is how it works.

**Angela** · 10-30-2009, 02:44 PM

Hmmmmmm..... now that most people believe the introduction of 'lights' was a mistake, lets create the ultra ultra ultra light by taking out the majority of just about the least harmful part of a cigarette and leaving in all the stuff that causes the health problems! Yeah right.

Well, with the criteria of NRT (ie to treat the 'disease' of nicotine adiction) it will probably pass! It may very well treat that disease.... won't do much else to help people's health though, will it?

**Nestran** · 10-30-2009, 02:47 PM

Well I only got through half the article because I have a weak stomach but from what I can see is that they found a 47% quit rate at 6 weeks with a combination of the no nic cigs and NRT lozenges.

Soo, quit what? They are combusting tobacco and sucking on nicotine lol.

No harm reduction at all, they just separated them. I want to see the success rates after they stop the lozenge or stop smoking the cig for a few weeks.

Now granted, I am still using nic and simulating the smoking experience but I am not harming others and there is harm reduction for me.

these cigs are stupid lol.

Nestran

**LaceyUnderall** · 10-30-2009, 03:11 PM

Interesting. So these cigarettes as NRT's are still going to burn? Isn't it the burning that is harmful?

Wow. There are SO many implications to this and routes this could go... I kind of fear for the FDA "approving" this cigarette. It opens the door for many tobacco cigarettes being FDA approved.

22nd Century Ltd., LLC - Technology Here's more on the actual product idea from the company

**TropicalBob** · 10-30-2009, 03:36 PM

Halopunker is right. Quest was a step-down system to zero nic, provided by tobacco especially grown by the Amish (since Big Tobacco put the clamps on any other farming of such a product). It's a great story, BTW.

But a smoker gets all of the damaging tars and their carcinogens and none of the nicotine addiction satisfaction. I used all three Quest products and fell apart when the nicotine was removed or diminished. My case might be unique to me -- but it did NOT work. Neither will these silly cigs.

What a waste of effort when a better solution is at hand. Trouble is, e-smoking isn't promising great riches to companies that sit down for dinner with influential groups or legislators.

In fact, e-smoking threatens those very companies. So it must be stopped.

**Vocalek** · 10-30-2009, 07:13 PM

I love this part:

VLN cigarettes have potential to significantly increase smoking cessation by encouraging more smokers to attempt quitting with a more acceptable and familiar product. Since potential quitters are already smokers, VLN cigarettes do not expose patients to any new compounds and do not introduce any new side effects.

See, that's where SE went astray. They should have stated "...do not expose the user to any NEW carcinogens".