New FDA policy conflicts with itself and vaping

[beckdg]

The FDA has been interested in ultra low nic cigarettes for may be 10 years or longer and studies have been done to see how smokers react. It's time to track down that research, read it, and discuss some more. May be the FDA knows some things about this that we don't. Cigs without nic combined wiith available ecigs might be a powerful combination. If it would work I'm all for it.

OTOH...

While we're at it, let's make them fire safe.

Oh, wait...

What kind of extra chemical process is it going to take to reduce nic in tobacco... and at what cost and effect?

Guns don't kill people, virgins do! -Jim Jeffries

 

[beckdg]

I'm wondering if the policy of reducing nic in cigarettes isn't about current smokers at all, but is about keeping NEW SMOKERS from getting addicted in the first place.

Well... we could all reduce the alcohol in our beverages and see how that reduces addiction.

Guns don't kill people, virgins do! -Jim Jeffries

 

[listopencil]

OTOH...

While we're at it, let's make them fire safe.

Oh, wait...

What kind of extra chemical process is it going to take to reduce nic in tobacco... and at what cost and effect?

Guns don't kill people, virgins do! -Jim Jeffries

If you ever hopped around using different brands, or tried some of the 'natural' cigarettes, or rolled your own, you could notice the differing nicotine contents of various tobaccos. You could also taste the chemicals in the major brands after using the cans of tobacco to roll your own (like Top or Bugler). If anything the major companies would most likely be leaving steps out rather than adding more in the production process.

 

[stols001]

Mattiem, I see your point. I don't think every smoker wants to quit, certainly, and I absolutely support their right to smoke, in fact I live with one who will have to deal with the repercussions, so I'm not saying they should be abandoned or overlooked.

But... do you think many smokers took the time to evaluate vaping as a harm reduction option and fought for that cause? I don't think that many did. I'm just saying if I had to choose between supporting vaping or smoking, it would be the former. I have made plenty of posts on here about free will, and I'm not trying to shame a group for continuing a behavior I engaged in myself for a long time. I WILL say that if presented with only those two options, I would support vaping, as I believe it to be healthier, and easier to quit over the long term. I personally would like it if someone has been a smoker that they can CONTINUE to smoke exactly what they like, unless/until they are ready to quit, I do think for newer smokers or the curious, reducing nicotine could help. I have ABSOLUTELY no idea how to achieve both objectives, however, and I don't want to see a smoking black market more than any other one, as it usually leads to poorer health outcomes and more crime.

With that said, even given the unfairness of the "two options" which it seems we are headed toward... I have to support the one that I believe is overall better for society. Ideally, it wouldn't be a choice, but if I lived in an ideal world.... I can't remember one. My first memory is of my mom crying in the middle of the night, because my dad was possibly bleeding out in the hospital from repairing a lung collapse (I was 3), and she was pretty sure he was going to die. And he smoked himself and did not quit for a very long time after that, and I started myself...

I agree that motivation has to be there.... But I think my dad would have vaped then, if it were around.... It would have been good harm reduction for him, possibly, though maybe not perfect.

I just... other than no intervention at all except for vape education that is correct and accurate and timely, as well as including vape in Smoking Cessation classes (WITH education) to make that happen? I don't really know how cigarettes can be made "safer" or "less addictive" without causing current smokers difficulty.... I really don't. I wish I did.

Anna

 

[beckdg]

There was this in Gottliebs's speech

"I can tell you that FDA and others have done some preliminary analysis of the potential public health impacts if cigarettes could no longer create or sustain addiction."

I'd like to see that data, which, if accurate supports the proposal. Would it do so for all smokers? Probably not, but if it can somehow help a percentage of smokers, and help avoid future addicted smokers, it's not an unreasonable approach.

Unreasonable is being sold a fallacy once again.

An addictive substance is "X" addictive, not "X" addictive at "Y" strength.

Tolerance level is the variable that dictates strength as opposed to strength being the variable that dictates addictiveness.

Guns don't kill people, virgins do! -Jim Jeffries

 

[CMD-Ky]

Well done, Mattiem, so well done.

I am sorry to be so blunt but that is one road I refuse to go down. It's like the folks that quit cold turkey. In their mind if they could do it that way we should be able to do it too. We found vaping and it worked for us but I would never tell someone "It worked for me, it should work for you too".

Personally I want to find a way to stick up for both smokers and vapers. There are some die hard smokers that will NEVER give up their smokes and that should be their choice. I fight for vaping so it will be there for those that might start smoking. I truly do believe that those that chose vaping over smoking will not get hooked on vaping the way we got hooked on smoking and will be able to put it behind them without all we had to go through to just quit.

The ANTZ and those that quit by going cold turkey "believe" all of it is harmful and if they can quit or never start in the first place we should be able to do so too.

One "can" do most anything if the desire to do so is there. Forcing the desire never works. In most cases it will just cause most adults to just dig in their heals even harder.

I have been around long enough to remember when we lived with the motto...Live and let live......now it seems to be ....do it my way or you are doing it wrong.

 

[beckdg]

Yes, vaping saves lives. But not all smokers will quit with vaping alone. Here we're a self selected population for whom vaping was successful. We've seen some folks who come through here who never get vaping to work for them.

The most significant finding is Gottieb coming out and saying it's not the nicotine that kills, it's all the other stuff in combustible tobacco that does. That right there is a huge step forward for not demonizing nicotine, but the products of burning tobacco. That's a big hole in anti-vape crowd.

I'll wait for him to say it's not only nic causing addiction, nic strength doesn't define how addictive and nic removal will consist of an added chemical processing of the tobacco.

Still ignorant half truth... and people eating it up.

Guns don't kill people, virgins do! -Jim Jeffries

 

[beckdg]

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but all I have heard/seen/read about reducing nicotine levels in "combustible tobacco products" is that it is a "plan" or "being considered"......in reality, no more then an idea that some are sharing. That is also a pretty good way to "test the waters" for support of nicotine reduction. This "idea" will be in flux and with positive feedback, easily adjusted or expanded. "Testing the waters" creates ripples. It is very easy to remove the word "combustible" leaving "tobacco products."

Even if this "plan" is mandated as is, only to "combustible tobacco products", it will be implemented over a very long period of time, probably in steps. During that time, anything can happen.

Desensitize and allow the idea to become accepted... then switch products.

The possibility is a very valid point.

Guns don't kill people, virgins do! -Jim Jeffries

 

[beckdg]

If you ever hopped around using different brands, or tried some of the 'natural' cigarettes, or rolled your own, you could notice the differing nicotine contents of various tobaccos. You could also taste the chemicals in the major brands after using the cans of tobacco to roll your own (like Top or Bugler). If anything the major companies would most likely be leaving steps out rather than adding more in the production process.

And if you've hopped around as much as I have you realize you can buy differing strains of tobacco grown in differing regions with slightly differing strengths of nic...

And that "companies" (major tobacco corporations) don't leave out excess processes that add more chemicals.

That's why the cleanest tobacco I ever got was a Turkish blend with a cigarette cut but pipe moisture that I used to buy by the 5lb bale.

Guns don't kill people, virgins do! -Jim Jeffries

 

[listopencil]

And that "companies" (major tobacco corporations) don't leave out excess processes that add more chemicals.

Yes, that's exactly my point. They include processes that add more chemicals in order to increase nicotine delivery. You had said that you wondered what processes they were going to have to add to reduce nic in cigs. I'm saying that if they simply eliminated the steps that they currently take to increase nic then that's not an issue.

 

[Mazinny]

As vaping would continue to provide higher levels of nic v. these new low nic cigarettes, is a possibility. Again, maybe some smokers will take advantage and shift, but at least they'll have the option.

Or increase their risk by ensuring that they absorb more toxins and carcinogens for the same dose of nicotine.

 

[beckdg]

Yes, that's exactly my point. They include processes that add more chemicals in order to increase nicotine delivery. You had said that you wondered what processes they were going to have to add to reduce nic in cigs. I'm saying that if they simply eliminated the steps that they currently take to increase nic then that's not an issue.

I don't think they increase nic.

I'd want some documentation or reference suggesting somebody does before assuming it's a process they can simply leave out.

But I've had some pretty clean tobacco I'm sure had more nic than my cigs. Of course that's assumption going by my nic hit when I smoked it.

But I'm pretty confident i'm a pretty good judge all things considered.

Guns don't kill people, virgins do! -Jim Jeffries

 

[beckdg]

Random thought

Pretty soon everybody is going to be up in arms over this new killer industry, BT.

(Big tomato)

<or big egg plant>

As they attempt to reduce nic in cigs...

Guns don't kill people, virgins do! -Jim Jeffries

 

[stols001]

Are tobacco companies increasing the nicotine content in cigarettes?

This refers to two studies that indicate nic has increased, I didn't chase down the studies, but I am certain they increase it, either to standardize it, or to add to the addictive effect. Because nicotine is already in tobacco, the BT companies don't list it as an "additive."

Anna

 

[Ibitz]

I hate to like your post ENAUD but yes there will be a subset of smokers who will smoke themselves to death. Just as a number of alcoholics and addicts will drink/use themselves to death. That is called free will. We all get offered choices (I think) along the way, and as conditions change, different opportunities appear. I am one of the people who really thought I'd be smoking in my coffin as they lowered me into my grave.... But then the REALITY of COPD and what it feels like taught me a LESSON which I could have CHOSEN to ignore, and I'm still half confused that I MADE the choice I did. It's a sad fact however. I'm glad that I'm not one of those smokers who took up vaping AFTER the oxygen tank, honestly and I wish there were a way to help, but free will.... Is what it is. Do I judge such smokers? Not even remotely, and in fact I wish that there were some totally different option, but free will is what it is. Period.

Vaping in my local starbucks, no one is fussing. It's quite nice.

Anna

Anna, you are like a breath of fresh air. I agree with you. Some people are going to keep smoking no matter what because they chose to. It is a matter of choice! I have introduced vaping to several members of my family and friends. Some chose to continue with vaping and some go back to smoking. I'm sorry to say the latter is a higher number I smoked many many years and for most of my smoking life I wanted to quit and could not! Yes I stopped many times but for one reason or another could not continue to be a non smoker. Smoking is one of those things that sucks you in and you believe that you cannot quit. I'ts like a pacifier and a routine all rounded into one. When I was introduced to e-cigs and tried it out for two days, I jumped on the chance to NEVER smoke again. I had absolutely no problem quitting cigarettes because I had been looking for an escape for a long, long time THAT WORKED! For me, vaping mimicked smoking so closely and it sure tasted a lot better. I am grateful that I have not had the health issues that many smokers have even after smoking 55 years. That doesn't mean that I have no issues from smoking, it just means that now they probably won't get worse. At least I hope not! I also do not judge people who still smoke. They are making the choice and they will have to live with it and most likely pay the consequences.

 

[listopencil]

I don't think they increase nic.

I'd want some documentation or reference suggesting somebody does before assuming it's a process they can simply leave out.

But I've had some pretty clean tobacco I'm sure had more nic than my cigs. Of course that's assumption going by my nic hit when I smoked it.

But I'm pretty confident i'm a pretty good judge all things considered.

Guns don't kill people, virgins do! -Jim Jeffries

Those are available. If you're interested, you can search those out and decide for yourself if the sources are valid. Even if you dismiss the possibility of cigarette companies increasing the nicotine levels in tobacco, they certainly do have steps in their manufacturing processes where chemicals are added to their cigarettes in order to increase the efficiency of nicotine delivery when their product is consumed.

 

[beckdg]

Those are available. If you're interested, you can search those out and decide for yourself if the sources are valid. Even if you dismiss the possibility of cigarette companies increasing the nicotine levels in tobacco, they certainly do have steps in their manufacturing processes where chemicals are added to their cigarettes in order to increase the efficiency of nicotine delivery when their product is consumed.

I have given you all my free time for the week.

Now I'm on borrowed time.

I've been working over 100 hours a week.

So no, I'm not looking anything up. Simple product choices for household purchases are daunting enough at this point.

The bolded is VERY common knowledge.

Guns don't kill people, virgins do! -Jim Jeffries

 

[listopencil]

I have given you all my free time for the week.

Now I'm on borrowed time.

I've been working over 100 hours a week.

So no, I'm not looking anything up. Simple product choices for household purchases are daunting enough at this point.

The bolded is VERY common knowledge.

Guns don't kill people, virgins do! -Jim Jeffries

Suit yourself. You are the only person that you need to convince, and I am the only person that I need to convince. With that common knowledge in hand, though, we have identified a process that can be eliminated.

 

[beckdg]

Are tobacco companies increasing the nicotine content in cigarettes?

This refers to two studies that indicate nic has increased, I didn't chase down the studies, but I am certain they increase it, either to standardize it, or to add to the addictive effect. Because nicotine is already in tobacco, the BT companies don't list it as an "additive."

Anna

Thank you, Anna.

Let me just quote your link...

The group's examination of how that increase may have come about pinpoints two major areas: nicotine levels in the tobacco plant and the design of the cigarette.

Our disagreement was whether tobacco companies were adding nic as a chemical in the cigarette making process.

Your link indicates it isn't.

It should be common knowledge that farming and manufacturing techniques of all things have been improving in that time frame.

And according to your link, that accounts for the continuing increase in nicotine in cigarettes.

Guns don't kill people, virgins do! -Jim Jeffries

 

[beckdg]

Furthermore, the dismal 1.1% to 1.6% per year increase indicates to me that nicotine content likely isn't the focus in the improved farming.

"Other Stuff" seems to have had years within that same time frame where they've not only been able to isolate and choose which of the 2 active ingredients they're farming for, but also had double digit percentage increases in potency of either, or.

Guns don't kill people, virgins do! -Jim Jeffries