Government: Research Subjects Should Inhale REAL Smoke

[Vocalek]

Sarcasm Alert: Yeah, right. I'm sure that inhaling real smoke for another year or so is healthier for smokers than switching them to vaporized nicotine.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/29/h...sed-in-studies-to-help-smokers-quit.html?_r=1

The National Institutes of Health bought nine million of these cigarettes, marked “for research purposes only,” from the 22nd Century Group as part of a broadening scientific effort to find ways to regulate cigarettes so that they are nonaddictive. The Spectrum brand test cigarettes have eight different levels of nicotine for research, from a nicotine content of 3 percent to 100 percent of the nicotine in the best-selling Marlboro Gold, though a 97 percent reduction is the most common level.

And if there was ever any doubt that Harvard dentist Gregory Connolly is a nicotine prohibitionist, here's the proof:

The F.D.A.’s advisory panel has not put nicotine on its agenda yet, which is why Dr. Gregory N. Connolly, a Harvard professor of public health and antismoking advocate, said he resigned from the F.D.A. panel in December.

“After 50 years of knowing cigarettes cause cancer, it’s nice to know we have a supply we can investigate,” Dr. Connolly said. “But the real issue is the F.D.A. should have begun a process two years ago to see if we can eliminate nicotine in cigarettes, at least for children. If we can put a man on the moon, we can get rid of nicotine.”

Kudos to Martha W. for bringing this article to the attention of CASAA.

 

[JollyRogers]

You would think with all the money NIH is throwing around, they could spend it to do a real research project on personal vaporizers. They are afraid of the results, plus I think big money has something to do with this. No tax dollars are lost with this cigarette, they can still tax the heck out of the genetically altered tobacco. This is to tobacco what caffeine free is to coffee (or what caffeine is to energy drinks - considering the extra strong nic tobac developed to allow less puffs to get your nic).

Anybody remember switching to ultra lights from say Marlboro Reds? I smoked a lot more to satisfy the nicotine craving (or whatever else they put in there). Same principle here. Nicotine free cigarettes will not work. Obviously these people don't really understand smokers.

 

[Spazmelda]

Wow, just wow... Words can not even express what a boneheaded idea this is, on so many levels.

So... reducing the (probably) least harmful component of cigarettes while keeping all the cancer causing compounds = great idea.

But... practically eliminating the cancer causing compounds while keeping the least harmful (though admittedly somewhat addictive) compound, with the option to easily reduce the levels of that compound = dangerous horrible idea.

??? This boggles the rational mind.

And... What about the children?!?! LOL!

And teenagers could still experiment with cigarettes, as they are wont to do, without getting addicted.

So, it's an awesome idea for teens/children to get all the cancer causing compounds of burning plant material while developing the strong hand to mouth habits and coolness factor of smoking. ???

I'm baffled. Completely baffled.

Have these cigarettes been tested for 'detectable' levels of TSNAs, I wonder?

/sarcasm


ETA: Also... I think it's entirely naive to think that BT doesn't have other ways of making cigarettes addictive as hell even if nicotine were completely eliminated from them.

 

[Vocalek]

And if, eventually, the only commercial cigarettes available are void of nicotine, guess what addicted smokers will be doing? As if the black market problem isn't big enough now.

 

[Spazmelda]

And if, eventually, the only commercial cigarettes available are void of nicotine, guess what addicted smokers will be doing? As if the black market problem isn't big enough now.

Right. Good point. I hadn't thought of that (my mind was too busy reeling from the sheer boneheadedness of the idea), but it would be an inevitable consequence.

 

[tommy2bad]

Love this bit
"But the real issue is the F.D.A. should have begun a process two years ago to see if we can eliminate nicotine in cigarettes, at least for children."

 

[Spazmelda]

Love this bit
"But the real issue is the F.D.A. should have begun a process two years ago to see if we can eliminate nicotine in cigarettes, at least for children."

I didn't really even understand what that was supposed to mean. There will be special 'child' cigarettes with no nicotine? LOL!

 

[Thulium]

I didn't really even understand what that was supposed to mean. There will be special 'child' cigarettes with no nicotine? LOL!

It's the "best" idea the ANTZ have had so far: 22nd Century Delivers Proprietary Research Cigarettes for U.S. Government Order | EON: Enhanced Online News

 

[Spazmelda]

Okay, so these are mainly for research. I guess that sort of makes sense. (That point kind of got muddled towards the end of the article with the quotes from Connoly and others.) If you were going to try to untangle the effects of nicotine vs. everything else as far as addiction goes, you'd pretty much have to have such a cigarette. I wonder what other sorts of additives these research cigarettes will have though. Will they have all the other stuff that cigarette companies have been manipulating for decades now to find the perfect addictive mix? If not, then there are going to be some holes in their research.

It's still weird that they feel all warm and fuzzy towards this line of investigation, and not towards *honest* investigation of e-cigs. If you were to sit down and think of 'the perfect' way to get people to quit smoking you really couldn't design anything better than an e-cig. It's the same basic concept of the NRTs, yet it addresses their main failure in that they don't satisfy the hand/mouth behaviors that cigarettes do.

 

[Vocalek]

Okay, so these are mainly for research. I guess that sort of makes sense. (That point kind of got muddled towards the end of the article with the quotes from Connoly and others.) If you were going to try to untangle the effects of nicotine vs. everything else as far as addiction goes, you'd pretty much have to have such a cigarette. I wonder what other sorts of additives these research cigarettes will have though. Will they have all the other stuff that cigarette companies have been manipulating for decades now to find the perfect addictive mix? If not, then there are going to be some holes in their research.

It's still weird that they feel all warm and fuzzy towards this line of investigation, and not towards *honest* investigation of e-cigs. If you were to sit down and think of 'the perfect' way to get people to quit smoking you really couldn't design anything better than an e-cig. It's the same basic concept of the NRTs, yet it addresses their main failure in that they don't satisfy the hand/mouth behaviors that cigarettes do.

You don't understand. They are not seeking scientific truth. They are seeking justification for their pre-conceived idea that the right thing to do is lower nicotine levels in cigarettes. See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15923465

I'm sure that they don't have the least inkling that nicotine abstinence is actually harmful for some folks. Just as we saw an increase in obesity when they got half the smokers to quit, if they succeed in wiping out nicotine use, they will see a surge in "early onset dementia" and wonder where it is coming from.

 

[Vocalek]

And I wonder whether they have at all considered this:

Reduced-nicotine cigarettes increase platel... [Nicotine Tob Res. 2008] - PubMed - NCBI

We conclude that in smokers, nicotine modulates platelet activation, and it may significantly moderate the risk of cardiovascular disease caused by non-nicotine smoke components. Conversely, reduced-nicotine cigarettes may increase harm.

 

[Spazmelda]

With all due respect, I think I do understand. I do understand that the motives behind the research are complicated, and that government and researchers aren't free from conflicts of interest. The company producing the lowered nicotine cigarettes may or may not be involved in the conception of a sinister plan to justify making nicotine cigarettes illegal. They may or may not be wanting to just make a buck off of a product by filling a niche that these researchers see as useful.

As a scientist I do believe that research gives us the tools to understand nicotine or cigarette addiction, whether the scientists doing the research are honest or unbiased is a different question. Lowered nicotine cigarettes would be a useful tool in answering some of the questions about cigarette addiction. How the government chooses to use or interpret that information (and whether they influence the data) is another issue. I do realize that all of this is intertwined and somewhat 'dirty'.

Sorry if I'm not making myself clear. My 5 yo is poking me and asking me stuff as I try to put my thoughts down.

 

[Spazmelda]

Oh, and so as not to make it out like I'm disagreeing with you, because really I'm not... I still think it's a boneheaded idea. It's just that the lower nic cigarettes make a little more sense after reading the second link that was posted. Of course as you said, I'm sure that the government already has their conclusions drawn from the research that hasn't been completed yet, but I can see the usefulness in lower nic cigarettes for research (if used to gather real honest data).

 

[Jackiej5407]

Well I was so blown away by this entire thread, that I went to 21 Century website, went to their Contact Us page: http://www.xxiicentury.com/contact/ ... I left a message for them that was as "professional and business-like" as I could make it. Sheesh!

 

[rothenbj]

Wasn't this tried once before and failed miserably? I'm not a scientist but I can't see how this could be studied without using human test subjects. You certainly aren't going to tell anything from feeding rats no-nic smokes. Maybe the RATZ will smoke them instead.

I can't even make sense of it as I'm typing. Perhaps it's the infernal generator outside my garage (no electric right now) but I really don't get it.

 

[nopatch]

You don't understand. They are not seeking scientific truth. They are seeking justification for their pre-conceived idea that the right thing to do is lower nicotine levels in cigarettes. See: Toward a comprehensive long term nicotine policy. [Tob Control. 2005] - PubMed - NCBI

I'm sure that they don't have the least inkling that nicotine abstinence is actually harmful for some folks. Just as we saw an increase in obesity when they got half the smokers to quit, if they succeed in wiping out nicotine use, they will see a surge in "early onset dementia" and wonder where it is coming from.

Hmm. Ma'm if you dont mind i would like to know if you have any specific expertise/exposure in reading scientific publications

 

[tommy2bad]

The third phase includes a progressive reduction in the nicotine content of cigarettes, with clean nicotine freely available to take the place of tobacco as society's main nicotine source.

Thats from this; Toward a comprehensive long term nicotine policy. [Tob Control. 2005] - PubMed - NCBI
Which makes the opposition to e-cig totally incomprehensible. Here we have a clean nic delivery system, yet its objected to because it resembles smoking. Which they intend to offer an alternative to, because cigarettes no longer have sufficient nicotine.... and here I'm lost. Are they unaware of e-cig? Are they so closed off in their labs and boardrooms that the world has left them behind.

 

[MTV]

I was going to rail on the guy, that is until I read that he was doing it for the children...dang it...I can't be against the children

 

[cookiebun]

Hmm. Ma'm if you dont mind i would like to know if you have any specific expertise/exposure in reading scientific publications

I think you need to take a look at Vocalek's profile and post history.;-)

 

[Vocalek]

Hmm. Ma'm if you dont mind i would like to know if you have any specific expertise/exposure in reading scientific publications

tommy2bad hit the nail right on the head. I was referring to this statement from the referenced article:

The third phase includes a progressive reduction in the nicotine content of cigarettes, with clean nicotine freely available to take the place of tobacco as society's main nicotine source.

My point is that they have already decided that lowering the nicotine content in combusted cigarettes is a good thing to do.

But is it ethical? Smoking cigarettes with lower nicotine content continues to expose the test subjects to tar, CO, particulates, and all the toxins and carcinogens delivered via cigarette smoke. Furthermore, many of us who were smokers back in the 1980s greatly increased our CPD when we switched from regular cigarettes to "low tar and nicotine" cigarettes. What's to prevent these subjects from the same kind of compensatory smoking, which would actually increase their exposure to the most harmful elements in smoke?

A smoker's nicotine intake can be lowered by progressivly substituting cleaner sources of nicotine for smoked cigarettes. It does not appear that the subjects are going to be offered any clean nicotine, since the objective of the research is to determine whether lower nicotine cigarettes will cause smoking reduction or spontaneous quitting.

Carl Phillips has stated, “For the average smoker, smoking for just one more month before quitting causes greater health risk than switching to a low-risk nicotine source and never quitting it. Thus, discouraging a smoker, even one who [eventually] would have quit entirely, from switching to a low-risk alternative is almost certainly more likely to kill him than it is to save him.”