The majority (i.e. "nearly half") support reduced levels of nicotine in tobacco cigs

[Vocalek]

See: Nearly Half of Americans Would Support Reducing Nicotine in Cigarettes If and When the FDA Exerts its Authority to Act on It - American Legacy Foundation

Washington, D.C. – A study released online today by the American Journal of Public Health shows strong public support – nearly 50 percent -- for a potential federal mandate to reduce nicotine content in cigarettes. Under the Family Smoking Prevention and tobacco Control Act of 2009, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has the authority to reduce nicotine levels – but not to zero. While the FDA has not yet acted on this authority, the new data provides a glimpse into public sentiment around the issue.

The study presents nationally representative data from a June 2010 survey and found:

• Nearly half (46.7 percent) of U.S. adults agreed the FDA should reduce levels of nicotine in cigarettes. Only 16.5 % disagreed and another 37.8% neither agreed nor disagreed or had no opinion.
• Smokers who were interested in quitting are more likely to support regulation than smokers who are not thinking of quitting.
• African Americans, Hispanics, and those with lower education levels were especially supportive of nicotine reduction.

You can't comment there, but you can on their Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/legacy/posts/559893757371458?comment_id=6691046

 

[Xamicon]

I'm pretty sure they never asked me. So how many of us actually gave input? Certainly not half of US adults.

 

[Fiamma]

That 'nearly half' are probably non smokers and non vapers. afaic they don't need to mess with 'my' nic.

It's really easy and requires no thought to say limit nic when it doesn't affect you personally. Just sayin'

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

This just sounds like a way to get smokers to buy more cigarettes. Over a lot of years I went from Luckies to winston ultralight 100s. I also went from less than a pack a day to three packs a day because my body knew how much nicotine it wanted.

Copied this and posted it on the facebook site.

 

[Erncig]

So they are looking to go after the one chemical in cigs that isnt really bad for you and leave the rest alone? Yeah that makes sense.

... politicians, bunch of crooks the lot of them!

 

[Vocalek]

You don't understand. They have this theory. It's based on the fact that not everyone gets hooked on nicotine when they experiment with nicotine. They believe that there is some magic level at which nicotine isn't addictive. So when they get the nicotine in combusted cigarettes to that level, everyone will quit.

 

[JerryRM]

You don't understand. They have this theory. It's based on the fact that not everyone gets hooked on nicotine when they experiment with nicotine. They believe that there is some magic level at which nicotine isn't addictive. So when they get the nicotine in combusted cigarettes to that level, everyone will quit.

Oh really !!!!! So, it's only the nic that keeps people smoking, the enjoyment of lighting up and the hand to mouth habit have nothing to do with it. I'm so glad that they told me that, I could have quit smoking, years ago.

 

[rothenbj]

What they should have found out was how many believe that nicotine is what makes cigarettes a health hazard. I've learned that a large portion of the population doesn't understand the real reason that smoking is hazardous. The ANTZ have done a great job of shifting the focus from smoking to tobacco and nicotine over the last several decades.

Nobody seems to remember that the anti-smoking movement sold the idea of low tar and nicotine cigarettes decades ago, then realized their mistake and blamed it on the tobacco companies. However to be fair, I don't think the tobacco companies raised any objection knowing they could sell more cigarettes.

 

[DC2]

This is a great example of how brainwashing is very effective, even at the population level.
It's just unfortunate that this is all part of the fight that lies in front of us.

 

[Petrodus]

This is a great example of how brainwashing is very effective, even at the population level.
It's just unfortunate that this is all part of the fight that lies in front of us.

LIES
Is that an play on words ??

 

[Jman8]

Nearly half (46.7 percent) of U.S. adults agreed the FDA should reduce levels of nicotine in cigarettes. Only 16.5 % disagreed and another 37.8% neither agreed nor disagreed or had no opinion

Well, that's certainly not a majority. Another (accurate) spin is to report that over half (53.3%) of U.S. adults are not in favor of the FDA reducing levels of nicotine in cigarettes.

 

[Vocalek]

Well, that's certainly not a majority. Another (accurate) spin is to report that over half (53.3%) of U.S. adults are not in favor of the FDA reducing levels of nicotine in cigarettes.

You're absolutely correct. Their headline did not say, "A majority." I used it in my headline ironically. The rest of the article went on to gush about their plans, acting exactly as if they HAD a majority.

Of course, polls of this type are designed to support a foregone conclusion. Most citizens have no idea what effect such an action would have on smoking rates, and worse yet, no idea of the negative health impact it could have on smokers. I'll bet the term "compensatory smoking" was not uttered during the interview.

Such questions are better asked of the people whose lives the action would directly affect, not the general public.

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

They might as well ask if you prefer the smell of a waste water treatment plant or a burning cigarette. Headline: public prefers burning cigarette smell.

I hate polls.

 

[Petrodus]

They might as well ask if you prefer the smell of a waste water treatment plant or a burning cigarette. Headline: public prefers burning cigarette smell.
I hate polls.

Yeah ... I hate polls also.
Garbage In ... Garbage Out

 

[daddytwigs]

How about a pulp plant. Now that's nasty.
Think I'd still rather have the burning tobacco

 

[DC2]

Nothing smells as bad a rendering plant.

 

[Jman8]

I like polls and stats. I think they are informative and almost always used correctly.

Like a recent poll found that 42% of all stats are made up. It's very helpful information.

 

[TennDave]

This reminds me of another issue that has had growing public support. The public hears something and thinks, "yeah, that sounds good," but they never think through the implications. The other issue I thought about was drug testing welfare recipients and not allowing them government assistance if they test positive (for anything...could be expanded to nicotine...I digress). Granted, some welfare recipients have no business receiving any assistance, but can you imagine the greater public burden such a plan would cause- more homelessness, more crimes, etc.? People don't think through things to consider these things....

 

[Hello World]

Washington, D.C. – A study released online today by the American Journal of Public Health shows strong public support – nearly 50 percent -- for a potential federal mandate to reduce nicotine content in cigarettes. Under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has the authority to reduce nicotine levels – but not to zero. While the FDA has not yet acted on this authority, the new data provides a glimpse into public sentiment around the issue.

What a monumentally stupid idea.

Smokers will then rip off the filters, invent means/devices to concentrate the smoke, and the Gov't might enjoy higher taxes because more tobacco needs to be purchased to make up for the loss. Greedy politicians and bureaucrats can be counted upon to do just that.

But there is a silver lining in all this, in that more smokers will look for alternatives and end up on the vaper's side of the court.

 

[Petrodus]

I'll tell you what the owners of America don't want.
They don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking.
That's not in their best interest.
George Carlin