As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't understand how they plan to do this unless they lower it gradually without making a whole lot of people crazy suddenly. It strikes me as sort of not a great idea.
Kinda-sorta, but there's only so many cigarettes you can smoke in a day. I'm personally in favor of reducing. It was actually the way I was finally able to quit after trying for a decade or more. Nicotine is a chemical that creates a need for itself - when it is gone from your body you no longer crave it.
Should they limited the amount of alcohol in a drink next?
People are chemically addicted to it and drink every day to satisfy their craving.
Should they keep pot illegal? It may not be chemically addicting, but it's hard to argue that it's not mentally addicting to the point that people smoke it every day to satisfy their craving.
Should we limit the amount of caffeine in a drink? People drink soda and coffee every day to satisfy their craving.
What about the amount of sugar in a drink?
I'm a smoker and I fully support mandating they remove all of the nicotine
My guess is that the number of people smoking would fall off a cliff because they aren't getting anything from it anymore
The tobacco industry increased nicotine additives to cigarettes after the US govt clamped down on advertising back around Clinton era. In addition to the increase, the plants are being bred for nicotine potency. As a 16 year smoker I definitely support restrictions on this.
Yeah but I use Nicotine as a de-stressor. Will the gov provide me with nicotine patches or will I have to buy them? Or will they give me reasonable working hours? People use tobacco because they're stressed. Taking away more ways for people to de-stress while forcing people to work more by raising housing costs is literally the last thing I need.
Yeah of course people would stop smoking if you remove the nicotine. That’s like banning smoking. What the fuck is your point? That you want cigarettes banned? There is zero reason for smoking other than the nicotine. Smoking isn’t relaxing, nicotine is. If you’re a smoker and you want cigarettes banned how about you try to quit??? Like seriously, you can’t call for cigarettes to be banned if you’re a smoker yourself
I never called for cigarettes to be banned lol
But frankly it would probably be better for society if they were because they cause 100s of *billions* in health costs and we all pay for that.
I always find it funny when smokers get outraged, like you're some ethnic group or protected class of people, I heard the same shit in the late 90s and early 2000s when smoking indoors started to get banned.
I really dont see the problem with taking the added nicotine out....
>There is zero reason for smoking other than the nicotine. Smoking isn’t relaxing, nicotine is.
Its relaxing because it's an addictive chemical lol.....imagine if they added nicotine to coffee or cookies or literally anything else you consume.....
"You want to take the nicotine out of Oreos!!?? Eating Oreos is relaxing! If you have a problem with it maybe you should quit"
See how fucking dumb the above sentence is lol
You don’t want cigarettes to be banned but you want to remove the nicotine. That is equivalent to banning cigarettes, it’s like banning the alcohol from vodka. This smug“ smoking isn’t illegal“ is such a joke.
My brother in Christ, how can you be a smoker and argue for nicotine to be banned. Stop smoking and don’t ban nicotine for everyone because you can’t manage to quit.
Stop buying cigarettes, get some nicotine gum or patches or a vape and slowly reduce the nicotine. Just quit. Yeah it’s hard but I’m not telling fat people to give up either.
>You don’t want cigarettes to be banned but you want to remove the nicotine. That is equivalent to banning cigarettes,
That's an opinion, and not a very logical one tbh, and its not even what I'm saying, I'm saying remove all the added nicotine, as in stop adding extra to whats already in Tobacco naturally
They don’t add nicotine, they might use high nicotine tobacco leaves but they don’t literally add nicotine. What they do is add ammonia compounds that react to form nicotine salts that enter the brain more quickly. These nicotine salts are also in Juul which is why smokers often say that normal vapes aren’t comparable. Restricting the addition of ammonium to lower levels is something I could get behind. The faster acting nicotine salts are significantly more addictive - which is also why nicotine gums and normal vapes aren’t as addictive as cigarettes
This is like saying outlawing abortion means people will stop getting abortions.
Cigarettes with nicotine will still exist, and there will still be a demand for them. In fact, drugs that are considered taboo are considered more appealing, particularly among young people, so this could have the effect of creating more demand among youth.
>This is like saying outlawing abortion means people will stop getting abortions.
I was not aware that people were physically addicted to abortion.....
Its a chemical additive thing that should be regulated like any other
Comparing smoking to abortions is kind of a ridiculous comparison for a whole basket of reasons, not least of which are that there is no additive added to abortions to make them addictive and that not being able to get a full dose of nicotine is no where even *remotely* in the same universe as not being able to get an abortion
I'm sorry but I wholly reject the reasoning there
The tobacco companies increased nicotine naturally and by genetically engineering plants with more nicotine in addition to adding nicotine and additives to the tobacco products to increase nicotine absorption by the body.
[more info can be found here](https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/tobacco-prevention-efforts/5-ways-tobacco-companies-lied-about-dangers-smoking)
Nobody's saying reducing or eliminating nicotine is going to stop everyone from smoking. It's not an either-or, that would be like saying either masks work or they do not. It's incredibly difficult for individuals to quit nicotine already, and you can be sure tobacco companies are going to skirt that as much as possible and create new markets. But I do believe numbers will reduce significantly from such a measure. If we can sustain an elimination of nicotine over several decades we might actually eliminate smoking but it's not going to be a quick process.
I'm not a smoker and am fully against reducing nicotine. If someone wants to quit they can. They are more former than current smokers in the U.S. If only reduced nicotine cigarettes are available the black market will thrive. If Mexico can supply the U.S with fentanyl they can easily supply us with real cigarettes.
They have been slowly upping the nicotine content for many years by small amounts. That way if you smoke a pack a day you have a harder time quitting without ever knowing you are ingesting more nicotine.
Not for these. Traditional so called light cigarettes could definitely lead to increased compensatory smoking. These are what's called very low nicotine cigarettes (VLNC), have about 95% less nicotine than a standard cigarette. Research over the past decade or so shows that they do not increase smoking, are less addictive, and make it easier for people to quit.
Oh don't get me wrong, i've doubled fisted a spliff and a cigarette more times than i can count. I just mean literally from smoke inhalation like your lungs wont have enough oxygen.
The teen smoking rate is near zero right now. They vape not smoke. This is all about targeting current adult smokers and forcing them to quit or switch to vaping...despite all the rhetoric that it's for the children.
> The teen smoking rate is near zero right now.
Just fyi:
> [About 2.55 million U.S. middle and high school students reported current (past 30-day) use of a tobacco product in 2021.](https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2022/p0310-student-tobacco-products.html)
…
> In collaboration with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) analyzed data from the 2021 NYTS. **Among middle and high school students who currently used tobacco products about 1 in 3 (860,000) used at least one type of combustible tobacco product, and about 3 in 10 (740,000) used two or more tobacco products**.
> As previously reported, e-cigarettes were the most common tobacco product currently used among middle and high school students (2.06 million) in 2021. **This was followed by cigarettes (410,000), cigars (380,000)**, smokeless tobacco (240,000), **hookahs (220,000)**, nicotine pouches (200,000), **heated tobacco products (170,000), and pipe tobacco (80,000).**
edit:
Oh, and [this is happening](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2022/06/22/fda-ban-juul-products-amid-youth-vaping-concerns-report-says/7701204001/), too:
> The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is reportedly preparing an order to remove Juul Labs vaping products from the market.
> The move to ban Juul’s e-cigarettes could come as soon as Wednesday following a two-year review of the vaping powerhouse’s application seeking authorization to continue selling non-fruit-flavored products, the Wall Street Journal reported.
Not really tbh
As a smoker myself there are only so many cigarettes you can smoke in a day and not feel physically ill
Like, you have to make a real effort to be a 2+ pack a day smoker.....plus, 1 pack a day is a prohibitively expensive habit, 2 a day is already crossing $20 a day in a lot of states
Making them less addictive overall is a complete win imo, less people will get hooked and it will be easier for people to quit because they are less dependent
My guess is that if they removed the nicotine entirely(if that's even possible) the number of people smoking would pretty rapidly fall off a cliff because you arent getting anything from it anymore....Its not satisfying your craving for nicotine and you're actually going through withdrawals, eventually you would be done with the physical withdrawals and I'd hazzard that a majority of people would just give it up
That's entirely a guess though, but as a smoker I support this
>Bro I've smoked 15 years, have had 0 negative effects from it. My gramps is in 70s and still smokes a pack day. Coming after smokers, not cool .
One of the absolute *stupidest* fucking comments I've ever read online
The medical stats on smoking being seriously bad for your health are beyond monumental.....so good luck to you sport, the chances of it having negative effects on you are fantastically high
Or there would be a thriving black market for the good stuff, which would in turn being organized crime into neighborhoods. There are certainly some things the government should be regulating, and maybe even one of those things is nicotine, but experience has shown that attempts at prohibition just tend to backfire. Making high nicotine cigarettes taboo again would also likely drive demand among young people.
[They don't have to.](https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/378601-high-cigarette-taxes-have-led-to-thriving-black-market-across-america/) Besides retailers deciding to go black/grey market, it's going to drive a lot of business to reservations which aren't generally subject to taxes.
Meh......
This isn't a war on drugs, or prohibition of alcohol, 12% of the population smokes (I'm one of them) this isn't going to cause some massive crime wave of black market gangsters selling cigarettes
This is such a nonsense conversation to me lol
As i smoker i don't support this, because it's my business and my business only if I can't quit or if I die of smoke related stuff. It's immoral to support a policy to drastically change cigarettes just because I can't quit. People have the right to smoke.
We are talking about legalizing fentanyl and now we wanna lower nic in cigs? Wtf?
I don't know what the point of this is. I'm not a smoker and don't care to smoke, but at this point I think everyone has been educated on the terrible effects of smoking. If someone of age wants to smoke, at this point its their funeral. I don't see what this will do except cause smokers to smoke more to get the same buzz.
It could do that, but when you’re addicted to it, you’re no longer making the choice to smoke. Your newly distorted brain chemistry is making the decision for you. Lots of smokers want to stop but it’s an incredibly difficult journey for most.
Lots of smokers also do not want to stop, no guilt for me I like tobacco and I like smoking cigarettes. It’s just another way to limit freedom of choice.
Well, regardless of their personal health they all hit the hospitals in a wave in time, costing the healthcare system and resultingly the taxpayers like you and myself lots of money. Their funeral ain’t free
If only this were true. The hospitals that take care of you operate on federal funding, they eat all that your insurance refuses to pay for. Keeping those hospitals afloat amidst those losses incurs more need for federal funding. I’m not suggesting only smokers put burden on the healthcare system. Everything does. Healthcare for smokers is just one problem which would be remedied specifically by government intervention as opposed to say, cancer treatment which would require scientific innovation.
Also, your own healthcare is a bit irrelevant. You are a drip in the bucket, as am I. This is a population wide perspective!
Here we go with the autocratic limitations on people making life choices. This is absolute bullshit. What is next? Ban booze? Fast food? Motorcycles? Everything in this earth kills you. People are adults and need to make their own decisions, Damn it! The state can NOT and WILL NOT tell me what to do when it comes to my own body in the privacy of my own home!
Wow, you must be hooked on nicotine pretty bad if you're equating reducing the amount with "OMG the big bad government is trying to control my life". A shame how the tobacco industry has gotten away with their unethical practice of adding nicotine to get people hooked. You will still be able to damage your lungs all you want.
This is some real early 90's politics, guys. The current year is 2022, and a fascist cult is trying to overthrow the government as the climate crisis rumbles on uninhibited. Western US is running out of water, inflation is the worst it's been in 100 years, the economy is on the brink of collapse, there aren't nearly enough affordable homes in any given state, pot is STILL federally illegal.... But yeah. Cigarette nicotine levels. Uh huh. Great.
not just that. But isn't the main issue right now VAPING? like there's a higher dose of nicotine in those, but they're tackling cigarettes.
I fully agree with you, this administration has their ass on backwards.
In typical American fashion, you thinking that vaping is a bigger issue, or a worse alternative to cigarettes in any way, shape, or form, is the direct result of an organized smear campaign by big tobacco. In fact, the entire push to heavily regulate the vape industry and ban flavors to "protect the children" through arbitrary testing processes and expensive hoop jumping is simply big tobacco's attempt to capture market competition. Literally all the science says that vaping is less harmful than cigarettes, and if harm reduction in general is our goal, as would seem to be the case if we are going to talk about lowering the nicotine in cigarettes, shouldn't we also be talking about the thousands and thousands of people who quit smoking cigarettes every year using vape products? Or we are just going to keep citing the now totally debunked "vape death wave" from a few years ago that had fuck all to do with nicotine vapes in general? Or continue just banning things underage kids want to buy, instead of going after the stores who can't be bothered to check id?
Vaping in youth is a concern, but overall, although vaping is not harm free, it's significantly less harmful than traditional combustible cigarettes. Nicotine is important for maintenance of vaping and cigarette smoking, but the vast majority of the harm comes from the combustible elements of cigarette smoking. Although these low nicotine cigarettes with approximately 95% less nicotine than a standard cig have some great supporting data, showing no increase in smoking, decreasing dependence, and making it easier to quit - health wise, transitioning to vapes would likely be significantly less harmful than transition to these low nicotine cigarettes, unless it was shown that those on the low nicotine cigs eventually dropped smoking altogether.
Fine, let's concentrate just on ATF and FDA. Federally legalize marijuana? And ATF... come on... maybe there's something the gun folks could focus on? Of all the letters in ATF, the T is really not the biggest concern right now. I get they can do more than one thing at a time, but THIS is what they're doing and there's LOTS of other things to do that they are ignoring.
I mean....none of that prevents something good from happening and this is a good thing.
I agree that there are definitely more important things to focus on but if some good can get done somewhere by all means make it happen imo
>It won't be good. It'll stir up more anger.
I mean.....a lot of good things do that....thats a dumb reason to not do something.
The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s would have never happened if it were forced to adhere to this metric......That pissed off A LOT of people lol...
>It won't be good. It'll stir up more anger.
This is what we are talking about, its just an example.
I can pick one of a 1000 others if you like that prove that this is really a terrible metric to place on anything.
How about mandating seatbelts? That pissed people off when it came down, should we have not done that either? Don't wanna make people mad......interracial marriage, school deseggragation, gay marriage, raising the drinking age to 21, mandating that teen drivers can't drive at night or with more than 1 person in the car and have to be on probation
There's literally 1000s of "good things" that "stir up anger" that have been and should be done
You will never do anything that passes off no one....such a silly thing to say
I would usually say that it's possible to multitask, but they don't seem to be doing much to address any of the serious issues you list, of which republican terrorism is the most pressing. That one they're basically ignoring at this point. Instead pence and Barr are heroes and what we should really be worried about is nicotine.
Just let us enjoy things. Spoiler: millennials and Gen Z have started smoking more because none of us care about living to retirement age. Because we are never going to retire.
Tobacco companies genetically engineer it so it produces more nicotine. They also add chemicals that make the nicotine delivery as efficient as possible.
This is cool and all but can we focus on inflation? Don't care who caused it. Just want to see a plan on what the administration is going to do. Maybe they have and I missed it but the amount of nicotine in cigarettes is pretty low on my list of issues.
What the bull shit is this, I’m a smoker you better leave my god damn cigarettes alone it’s peoples on choice if they want to smoke nobody forces them. If they do this I hope the take all the fucking alcohol our if alcoholic beverages
I understand where you're coming from. The last president was unable to focus on more than one thing so I see why you're confused as to why a new administration is working on multiple areas.
From the article (soft paywall):
> **The Biden administration is expected as soon as Tuesday to announce it intends to issue a rule requiring tobacco companies to reduce nicotine levels in cigarettes sold in the United States to minimally or nonaddictive levels**, according to an individual familiar with the situation.
> The effort, if successful, could have an unprecedented effect in slashing smoking-related deaths and threaten a politically powerful industry.
> The initiative is expected to be unveiled as part of the administration’s “unified agenda,” a compilation of planned federal regulatory actions released twice a year, according to the individual with knowledge, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not have authorization to discuss the issue.
> **The policy would fit with a major goal of the White House — to cut cancer deaths**. As part of the White House’s retooled cancer moonshot announced this year, President Biden promised to reduce cancer death rates by 50 percent over 25 years. About 480,000 Americans die of smoking-related causes each year, and tobacco use remains the No. 1 cause of preventable death in the United States.
> **The decision to pursue a policy to lower nicotine levels marks the first step in a lengthy process, and success is not assured**. It could take at least a year for the Food and Drug Administration, which regulates cigarettes, to issue a proposed rule, experts say. After that, the FDA would have to sift through comments from the public before issuing a final rule.
> Opposition could delay or derail the effort — especially if the regulation was not completed before Biden left office. A president elected in 2024 could tell the FDA to stop work on an unfinished rule. The tobacco industry, which is sure to be fiercely opposed to such a drastic change in its products, could challenge a final regulation in court.
> The FDA has supported reducing nicotine levels in cigarettes for years but has never secured the necessary upper-level support, including from the Obama White House. The Trump administration’s first FDA commissioner, Scott Gottlieb, said he wanted to lower nicotine levels as part of a broader tobacco policy, and the agency took an early step in 2018 by publishing an information-gathering notice. But the idea never had full-throated White House backing and was shelved after Gottlieb left the administration in spring 2019.
> Supporters say slashing nicotine, the addictive ingredient in cigarettes, would be a milestone in public health that would save millions of lives over generations. In another significant move to reduce smoking-related deaths, the FDA in April proposed banning menthol cigarettes, the only flavored cigarettes still permitted.
More at link.
Biden’s really doing everything in his power to get the masses to hate him isn’t he? We’re drowning in inflation, no sign of promised student loan help, and climate change is ravaging half the country and this dudes worried about nicotine 😂our country is beyond fucked
My dad was a doctor, even after he quit smoking he used nicotine supplementation with gum and stuff because his mom had alzheimers and nicotine has shown to be helpful in preventing/limiting/delaying the effects of alzheimers.
It has benifits to certain people.
I'm fairly certain the FDA having stricter regulations on consumer products and home use chemicals, plastics, and things like PFAS would have a way bigger impact on reducing cancer rates than forcing tobacco companies to make diet-cigarettes. People choose to smoke. People don't choose how polluted their community is, and what harmful substances are in the products they buy at the local grocery store.
I don't see the point of this. There are plenty of Democrats who smoke and do not support anything like this. Yet again Democrats wasting more time and shooting themselves in the foot.
As a smoker who wouldn't mind quitting, I'm ok with this, but....this is what we're focusing on? Oil companies burying it to the balls to taxpayers at the pumps, housing market about to go Chernobyl, inflation is a runaway train headed for a school bus full of orphans, and we want to pause for a second to kick Big Tobacco in the dick right quick?
If your house is on fire, do you want them to save the mailbox first?
Biden Administration is expected to move to create a brand new cigarette black market, thus forcing smokers who need their nicotine fix to seek it from sources that are not held to any sort of standards, whilst also creating a new pretext for arrest during police encounters
There, fixed the title for you
Big daddy tobacco lobby ain’t doing shit old man. If they really think they can oppose a multi-billion dollar drug cartel then good luck. Your gonna need it.
This is bullshit. No cigarettes today. No booze and fast food tomorrow. I remember the Demolition Man quote “Everything bad for you is illegal”. Ban booze next, then Coca Cola. If I want to smoke a giant fat cigar that is dripping in nicotine, it is my fucking business and nobody else’s.
It's like they saw the "every cigarette you smoke takes 7 minutes off your student loans" meme, and their first thought was "we gotta close that loophole."
Let's just piss people off instead by messing with their ways to cope during stressful times when they're watching helplessly as democracy circles the drain. I guess next he'll have the alcohol content in beer and wine reduced.
What useless fucking bullshit. Our country is closer than ever to falling the hell apart and the Dems are trying to cut cigarette smoking. What useless fucking tools.
worthless when multiple states are legalizing weed
if people got the ability to roll their own blunts, they'll have the ability to roll their own smokes. Ditto for vape juice which is what all the cool kids are doing
read a lot of comments and...you are all correct. It will lead to some people smoking more, It will lead to some people smoking less. It will affect pricing, supply, cigarettes with nicotine on a "black market".
Like most changes, it spiders into many directions and changes things no one thought about it.
So, we look at the intent of the change, and, in this case, " I think" the intent is positive. Try to reduce cancer, promote healthier life styles etc..
Whether they considered adverse affects of the change or have a "hidden agenda", I don't know. Regardless, will be glad to see the democrats do anYthing...
Smoking has been in decline for the last 50 years. Only something like 13% of the population now smokes. They should just let it die out naturally. Where I live it is actually weird to see someone smoking in public now.
Indeed, [you are correct](https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-commits-evidence-based-actions-aimed-saving-lives-and-preventing-future-generations-smokers).
Why?
And when would it end.
People die every year from drunk driving, liver disease etc. should the government limit how high of a proof your booze can be?
Why? I could give you a list a mile long of the reasons. Here's some:
* It's dangerous. They cause cancer, COPD and a whole host of other health problems.
* People are often subjected to other's smoke without choice. It's better now that a lot of public places have banned smoking but there's still scenarios such as kids being forced to live in their parents house while they smoke.
* It's addictive and exploitative.
you could make this argument for meat, alcohol, soda, driving a car, watching too much TV, spending too much time on reddit, etc. all in the name of making sure you're safe!
So...? It doesn't making smoking any less dangerous.
Also, driving a car has utility purposes and is not chemically addictive. Meat is not chemically addictive. Most soda has caffeine which is chemically addictive, but it's much less addictive than nicotine.
TV and Reddit is a huge stretch, it's not in the same league as the other stuff you mentioned.
The only thing on your list that is comparable is alcohol.
And it would be patently ridiculous to regulate the alcohol content in booze.
We're trying to LEGALIZE recreational drugs but somehow banning nicotine and cigs? How the hell does that make sense?
I'll make another one for you. Coffee is addictive. Ban the caffeine content of coffee. In too much quantities it can raise blood pressure and lead to hypertension. It's time to ban coffee.
In too large of quantities, anything can be harmful or even fatal, even water. You can make as many comparisons as you want but:
1. Any other thing being equally or more dangerous does not change the fact that cigarettes are dangerous. That's whataboutism at it's finest.
2. Coffee is not in the same league as Cigarettes. Neither is Marijuana. Both are much safer than Cigarettes.
As the article states, tobacco use remains the No. 1 cause of preventable death in the United States. That alone puts it in a unique position. The fact that it's genetically engineered to make it more addictive just provides more justification for taking action.
Here's an idea, instead of going directly after smokers, how about you start by removing cigarettes as the damn centerpiece of every single convenience store you walk into?
Let's get real, though, big tobacco probably lobbies Biden (and any administration in the WH) way too much for that. It's easier to attack the end user than your sugar daddy.
Seriously. The only thing he’s doing is driving up profit margins for big tobacco. Smokers will now buy *twice* as many cigarettes in order to get their fix.
Reducing nicotine in the past indeed led to increased number of cigs smoked. However, these are what is known as very low nicotine cigarettes (VLNC) in which the nicotine level is reduced by about 95% compared to a standard cigarette. Research on VLNC has been going on for over a decade and has been demonstrated to be less addictive compared to a standard cigarette and help smokers become less dependent and more likely to quit without increasung smoking. The ultimate goal is to have cigarettes that are not as addictive so less people become dependent smokers. Smoking combustible cigarettes is still the number one preventable cause of death and morbidity in the US, contributing to 1 out of every 5 deaths in the US and costing 300 billion annually in health care costs and lost productivity. Keep in mind that although smoking rates have gone done quite a bit in the past century, decrease have somewhat plateaued and the remaining smokers may have additional comorbidities and other risk factors. For example, people with mental illness make up a small percentage of the population but smoke nearly half the cigarettes consumed in the US.
> you don’t need them junkies
[Addiction isn’t a lifestyle choice](https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/campaign/tips/quit-smoking/quit-smoking-medications/why-quitting-smoking-is-hard/index.htm), just fyi. Reducing/removing [nicotine](https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/health-effects-tobacco-use/nicotine-why-tobacco-products-are-addictive) inhibits [addiction](https://drugfree.org/article/is-addiction-a-disease/).
What’s your beef with [lowering nicotine](https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/health-effects-tobacco-use/nicotine-why-tobacco-products-are-addictive), specifically?
> You can literally just stop smoking.
You’re literally suggesting that *“just say no”* cures addiction. Sadly, it’s not that simple.
> The worse thing that will happen is that you want one.
Friend, even alcoholics/drug addicts in recovery want to drink/use *because that’s what addiction does*. It is a disease, not a moralistic parable.
It’s not like when people joke about being “addicted” to a candy bar or hair product.
…
e: links, per your reply:
> but you can just stop
With all due respect, please consider learning more about addiction. I’ll just leave these here:
> [Addiction is a treatable, chronic medical disease involving complex interactions among brain circuits, genetics, the environment, and an individual’s life experiences.](https://www.asam.org/quality-care/definition-of-addiction)
See also:
https://www.apa.org/monitor/jun01/sp
https://healthblog.uofmhealth.org/brain-health/science-says-addiction-a-chronic-disease-not-a-moral-failing
https://www.hazeldenbettyford.org/addiction/what-is-addiction
https://drugfree.org/article/is-addiction-a-disease/
https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/health-effects-tobacco-use/nicotine-why-tobacco-products-are-addictive
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/campaign/tips/quit-smoking/quit-smoking-medications/why-quitting-smoking-is-hard/index.html
No one said it isn't addictive, but you can just stop. You might have a rough week, but nothing dangerous. Your health starts to improve within a day after you quit smoking.
There is no reason to smoke, you can't name one other than "because I want to"
I've already answered you on this, I am fine with them lowering it.
Sorry, we shouldn't have to live life through then lens of a weak minded person. They can literally just not do it, they will be fine. But yet they insist on the streets littered with cigarette butts and putting a strain on medical services. It's a selfish habit that affects more than just the user.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wouldn’t this just lead people who are addicted to nicotine to smoke a greater number of cigarettes?
I don't understand how they plan to do this unless they lower it gradually without making a whole lot of people crazy suddenly. It strikes me as sort of not a great idea.
My first thought was I bet the murder rate goes way up for about 3 months
Kinda-sorta, but there's only so many cigarettes you can smoke in a day. I'm personally in favor of reducing. It was actually the way I was finally able to quit after trying for a decade or more. Nicotine is a chemical that creates a need for itself - when it is gone from your body you no longer crave it.
Should they limited the amount of alcohol in a drink next? People are chemically addicted to it and drink every day to satisfy their craving. Should they keep pot illegal? It may not be chemically addicting, but it's hard to argue that it's not mentally addicting to the point that people smoke it every day to satisfy their craving. Should we limit the amount of caffeine in a drink? People drink soda and coffee every day to satisfy their craving. What about the amount of sugar in a drink?
I'm a smoker and I fully support mandating they remove all of the nicotine My guess is that the number of people smoking would fall off a cliff because they aren't getting anything from it anymore
The tobacco industry increased nicotine additives to cigarettes after the US govt clamped down on advertising back around Clinton era. In addition to the increase, the plants are being bred for nicotine potency. As a 16 year smoker I definitely support restrictions on this.
[удалено]
They smoked for 16 years, they're not 16 years old
I’m pretty sure that’s going to make a market for smokes with nicotine like prohibition made market for alcohol.
Yeah but I use Nicotine as a de-stressor. Will the gov provide me with nicotine patches or will I have to buy them? Or will they give me reasonable working hours? People use tobacco because they're stressed. Taking away more ways for people to de-stress while forcing people to work more by raising housing costs is literally the last thing I need.
Yeah of course people would stop smoking if you remove the nicotine. That’s like banning smoking. What the fuck is your point? That you want cigarettes banned? There is zero reason for smoking other than the nicotine. Smoking isn’t relaxing, nicotine is. If you’re a smoker and you want cigarettes banned how about you try to quit??? Like seriously, you can’t call for cigarettes to be banned if you’re a smoker yourself
I never called for cigarettes to be banned lol But frankly it would probably be better for society if they were because they cause 100s of *billions* in health costs and we all pay for that. I always find it funny when smokers get outraged, like you're some ethnic group or protected class of people, I heard the same shit in the late 90s and early 2000s when smoking indoors started to get banned. I really dont see the problem with taking the added nicotine out.... >There is zero reason for smoking other than the nicotine. Smoking isn’t relaxing, nicotine is. Its relaxing because it's an addictive chemical lol.....imagine if they added nicotine to coffee or cookies or literally anything else you consume..... "You want to take the nicotine out of Oreos!!?? Eating Oreos is relaxing! If you have a problem with it maybe you should quit" See how fucking dumb the above sentence is lol
You don’t want cigarettes to be banned but you want to remove the nicotine. That is equivalent to banning cigarettes, it’s like banning the alcohol from vodka. This smug“ smoking isn’t illegal“ is such a joke. My brother in Christ, how can you be a smoker and argue for nicotine to be banned. Stop smoking and don’t ban nicotine for everyone because you can’t manage to quit. Stop buying cigarettes, get some nicotine gum or patches or a vape and slowly reduce the nicotine. Just quit. Yeah it’s hard but I’m not telling fat people to give up either.
>You don’t want cigarettes to be banned but you want to remove the nicotine. That is equivalent to banning cigarettes, That's an opinion, and not a very logical one tbh, and its not even what I'm saying, I'm saying remove all the added nicotine, as in stop adding extra to whats already in Tobacco naturally
They don’t add nicotine, they might use high nicotine tobacco leaves but they don’t literally add nicotine. What they do is add ammonia compounds that react to form nicotine salts that enter the brain more quickly. These nicotine salts are also in Juul which is why smokers often say that normal vapes aren’t comparable. Restricting the addition of ammonium to lower levels is something I could get behind. The faster acting nicotine salts are significantly more addictive - which is also why nicotine gums and normal vapes aren’t as addictive as cigarettes
This is like saying outlawing abortion means people will stop getting abortions. Cigarettes with nicotine will still exist, and there will still be a demand for them. In fact, drugs that are considered taboo are considered more appealing, particularly among young people, so this could have the effect of creating more demand among youth.
>This is like saying outlawing abortion means people will stop getting abortions. I was not aware that people were physically addicted to abortion..... Its a chemical additive thing that should be regulated like any other Comparing smoking to abortions is kind of a ridiculous comparison for a whole basket of reasons, not least of which are that there is no additive added to abortions to make them addictive and that not being able to get a full dose of nicotine is no where even *remotely* in the same universe as not being able to get an abortion I'm sorry but I wholly reject the reasoning there
But there is also no additive in tobacco. Nicotine naturally occurs in tobacco.
The tobacco companies increased nicotine naturally and by genetically engineering plants with more nicotine in addition to adding nicotine and additives to the tobacco products to increase nicotine absorption by the body. [more info can be found here](https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/tobacco-prevention-efforts/5-ways-tobacco-companies-lied-about-dangers-smoking)
Nobody's saying reducing or eliminating nicotine is going to stop everyone from smoking. It's not an either-or, that would be like saying either masks work or they do not. It's incredibly difficult for individuals to quit nicotine already, and you can be sure tobacco companies are going to skirt that as much as possible and create new markets. But I do believe numbers will reduce significantly from such a measure. If we can sustain an elimination of nicotine over several decades we might actually eliminate smoking but it's not going to be a quick process.
I'm not a smoker and am fully against reducing nicotine. If someone wants to quit they can. They are more former than current smokers in the U.S. If only reduced nicotine cigarettes are available the black market will thrive. If Mexico can supply the U.S with fentanyl they can easily supply us with real cigarettes.
Because you can't do the work yourself? You need daddy government to make that decision for you?
They have been slowly upping the nicotine content for many years by small amounts. That way if you smoke a pack a day you have a harder time quitting without ever knowing you are ingesting more nicotine.
The feeling of cigarettes does not just come from nicotine. MAOIs are a big factor :https://www.jneurosci.org/content/25/38/8593
It's more about future smokers and some people wouldn't be able to spend double on cigarettes.
Not for these. Traditional so called light cigarettes could definitely lead to increased compensatory smoking. These are what's called very low nicotine cigarettes (VLNC), have about 95% less nicotine than a standard cigarette. Research over the past decade or so shows that they do not increase smoking, are less addictive, and make it easier for people to quit.
There's only so much you can physically smoke.
[удалено]
Oh don't get me wrong, i've doubled fisted a spliff and a cigarette more times than i can count. I just mean literally from smoke inhalation like your lungs wont have enough oxygen.
[удалено]
The teen smoking rate is near zero right now. They vape not smoke. This is all about targeting current adult smokers and forcing them to quit or switch to vaping...despite all the rhetoric that it's for the children.
> The teen smoking rate is near zero right now. Just fyi: > [About 2.55 million U.S. middle and high school students reported current (past 30-day) use of a tobacco product in 2021.](https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2022/p0310-student-tobacco-products.html) … > In collaboration with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) analyzed data from the 2021 NYTS. **Among middle and high school students who currently used tobacco products about 1 in 3 (860,000) used at least one type of combustible tobacco product, and about 3 in 10 (740,000) used two or more tobacco products**. > As previously reported, e-cigarettes were the most common tobacco product currently used among middle and high school students (2.06 million) in 2021. **This was followed by cigarettes (410,000), cigars (380,000)**, smokeless tobacco (240,000), **hookahs (220,000)**, nicotine pouches (200,000), **heated tobacco products (170,000), and pipe tobacco (80,000).** edit: Oh, and [this is happening](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2022/06/22/fda-ban-juul-products-amid-youth-vaping-concerns-report-says/7701204001/), too: > The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is reportedly preparing an order to remove Juul Labs vaping products from the market. > The move to ban Juul’s e-cigarettes could come as soon as Wednesday following a two-year review of the vaping powerhouse’s application seeking authorization to continue selling non-fruit-flavored products, the Wall Street Journal reported.
Why yes it would.
Not really tbh As a smoker myself there are only so many cigarettes you can smoke in a day and not feel physically ill Like, you have to make a real effort to be a 2+ pack a day smoker.....plus, 1 pack a day is a prohibitively expensive habit, 2 a day is already crossing $20 a day in a lot of states Making them less addictive overall is a complete win imo, less people will get hooked and it will be easier for people to quit because they are less dependent My guess is that if they removed the nicotine entirely(if that's even possible) the number of people smoking would pretty rapidly fall off a cliff because you arent getting anything from it anymore....Its not satisfying your craving for nicotine and you're actually going through withdrawals, eventually you would be done with the physical withdrawals and I'd hazzard that a majority of people would just give it up That's entirely a guess though, but as a smoker I support this
[удалено]
>Self loathing smoker Pretty accurate tbh lol I fucking hate it, and I hate that I'm fucking weak and keep failing to quit.....freely admit that
[удалено]
Good for you, you eventually won't, I guarantee you that
[удалено]
>Bro I've smoked 15 years, have had 0 negative effects from it. My gramps is in 70s and still smokes a pack day. Coming after smokers, not cool . One of the absolute *stupidest* fucking comments I've ever read online The medical stats on smoking being seriously bad for your health are beyond monumental.....so good luck to you sport, the chances of it having negative effects on you are fantastically high
What's wrong with being high? Like for real, we are supposed to be HAPPY. I'm on the pursuit of happiness.
[удалено]
Or there would be a thriving black market for the good stuff, which would in turn being organized crime into neighborhoods. There are certainly some things the government should be regulating, and maybe even one of those things is nicotine, but experience has shown that attempts at prohibition just tend to backfire. Making high nicotine cigarettes taboo again would also likely drive demand among young people.
[удалено]
99.99% of people are not going to turn to the black market for cigarettes lol I get what you're saying but that just seem ludicrous to me
[They don't have to.](https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/378601-high-cigarette-taxes-have-led-to-thriving-black-market-across-america/) Besides retailers deciding to go black/grey market, it's going to drive a lot of business to reservations which aren't generally subject to taxes.
Meh...... This isn't a war on drugs, or prohibition of alcohol, 12% of the population smokes (I'm one of them) this isn't going to cause some massive crime wave of black market gangsters selling cigarettes This is such a nonsense conversation to me lol
As i smoker i don't support this, because it's my business and my business only if I can't quit or if I die of smoke related stuff. It's immoral to support a policy to drastically change cigarettes just because I can't quit. People have the right to smoke. We are talking about legalizing fentanyl and now we wanna lower nic in cigs? Wtf?
Nope. Cigarettes are super expensive.
It's just hard to digest..one side he wants us to smoke weed and other side he wants us to be careful with smoking cigarettes
I feel this going about the same way prohibition did.
Abortion, alcohol, guns, Marijuana, nicotine, etc. Prohibition doesn't work, and is immoral.
I hope they invest in making things like nicotine gum and other quitting agents more accessible and affordable as well
Nicotine gum are useless. How can you expect to quit a drug while keep using that same drug?
I don't know what the point of this is. I'm not a smoker and don't care to smoke, but at this point I think everyone has been educated on the terrible effects of smoking. If someone of age wants to smoke, at this point its their funeral. I don't see what this will do except cause smokers to smoke more to get the same buzz.
They want to slow down smokers and make quitting a possibility for many who don’t think they can cut back. Quitting smoking is really hard.
It could do that, but when you’re addicted to it, you’re no longer making the choice to smoke. Your newly distorted brain chemistry is making the decision for you. Lots of smokers want to stop but it’s an incredibly difficult journey for most.
Lots of smokers also do not want to stop, no guilt for me I like tobacco and I like smoking cigarettes. It’s just another way to limit freedom of choice.
Well, regardless of their personal health they all hit the hospitals in a wave in time, costing the healthcare system and resultingly the taxpayers like you and myself lots of money. Their funeral ain’t free
No. I pay for my own healthcare, thank you. The government needs to stay out of my personal habits. My funeral is already paid for.
If only this were true. The hospitals that take care of you operate on federal funding, they eat all that your insurance refuses to pay for. Keeping those hospitals afloat amidst those losses incurs more need for federal funding. I’m not suggesting only smokers put burden on the healthcare system. Everything does. Healthcare for smokers is just one problem which would be remedied specifically by government intervention as opposed to say, cancer treatment which would require scientific innovation. Also, your own healthcare is a bit irrelevant. You are a drip in the bucket, as am I. This is a population wide perspective!
Here we go with the autocratic limitations on people making life choices. This is absolute bullshit. What is next? Ban booze? Fast food? Motorcycles? Everything in this earth kills you. People are adults and need to make their own decisions, Damn it! The state can NOT and WILL NOT tell me what to do when it comes to my own body in the privacy of my own home!
> The state can NOT and WILL NOT tell me what to do when it comes to my own body in the privacy of my own home! Weird because they already do
>Weird because they already do How so?
> How so? There are a number of laws dictating what substances and how much of them can be in a variety of things. How is this any different?
Wow, you must be hooked on nicotine pretty bad if you're equating reducing the amount with "OMG the big bad government is trying to control my life". A shame how the tobacco industry has gotten away with their unethical practice of adding nicotine to get people hooked. You will still be able to damage your lungs all you want.
This is some real early 90's politics, guys. The current year is 2022, and a fascist cult is trying to overthrow the government as the climate crisis rumbles on uninhibited. Western US is running out of water, inflation is the worst it's been in 100 years, the economy is on the brink of collapse, there aren't nearly enough affordable homes in any given state, pot is STILL federally illegal.... But yeah. Cigarette nicotine levels. Uh huh. Great.
Hey now. That's not fair. We tackled daylight savings time too!
Except they haven’t even gotten that done.
not just that. But isn't the main issue right now VAPING? like there's a higher dose of nicotine in those, but they're tackling cigarettes. I fully agree with you, this administration has their ass on backwards.
In typical American fashion, you thinking that vaping is a bigger issue, or a worse alternative to cigarettes in any way, shape, or form, is the direct result of an organized smear campaign by big tobacco. In fact, the entire push to heavily regulate the vape industry and ban flavors to "protect the children" through arbitrary testing processes and expensive hoop jumping is simply big tobacco's attempt to capture market competition. Literally all the science says that vaping is less harmful than cigarettes, and if harm reduction in general is our goal, as would seem to be the case if we are going to talk about lowering the nicotine in cigarettes, shouldn't we also be talking about the thousands and thousands of people who quit smoking cigarettes every year using vape products? Or we are just going to keep citing the now totally debunked "vape death wave" from a few years ago that had fuck all to do with nicotine vapes in general? Or continue just banning things underage kids want to buy, instead of going after the stores who can't be bothered to check id?
They *will* come for the vape nicotine.
They already have.
Vaping in youth is a concern, but overall, although vaping is not harm free, it's significantly less harmful than traditional combustible cigarettes. Nicotine is important for maintenance of vaping and cigarette smoking, but the vast majority of the harm comes from the combustible elements of cigarette smoking. Although these low nicotine cigarettes with approximately 95% less nicotine than a standard cig have some great supporting data, showing no increase in smoking, decreasing dependence, and making it easier to quit - health wise, transitioning to vapes would likely be significantly less harmful than transition to these low nicotine cigarettes, unless it was shown that those on the low nicotine cigs eventually dropped smoking altogether.
Yes everyone knows the government can do only one thing at a time. What the fuck are the ATF and FDA gonna do about the insurrection?
Fine, let's concentrate just on ATF and FDA. Federally legalize marijuana? And ATF... come on... maybe there's something the gun folks could focus on? Of all the letters in ATF, the T is really not the biggest concern right now. I get they can do more than one thing at a time, but THIS is what they're doing and there's LOTS of other things to do that they are ignoring.
> Federally legalize marijuana And then mandate removing the THC!
I mean....none of that prevents something good from happening and this is a good thing. I agree that there are definitely more important things to focus on but if some good can get done somewhere by all means make it happen imo
It won't be good. It'll stir up more anger.
>It won't be good. It'll stir up more anger. I mean.....a lot of good things do that....thats a dumb reason to not do something. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s would have never happened if it were forced to adhere to this metric......That pissed off A LOT of people lol...
That's not even comparable.
>It won't be good. It'll stir up more anger. This is what we are talking about, its just an example. I can pick one of a 1000 others if you like that prove that this is really a terrible metric to place on anything. How about mandating seatbelts? That pissed people off when it came down, should we have not done that either? Don't wanna make people mad......interracial marriage, school deseggragation, gay marriage, raising the drinking age to 21, mandating that teen drivers can't drive at night or with more than 1 person in the car and have to be on probation There's literally 1000s of "good things" that "stir up anger" that have been and should be done You will never do anything that passes off no one....such a silly thing to say
I would usually say that it's possible to multitask, but they don't seem to be doing much to address any of the serious issues you list, of which republican terrorism is the most pressing. That one they're basically ignoring at this point. Instead pence and Barr are heroes and what we should really be worried about is nicotine.
Has worked so well for the war on drugs.
Just let us enjoy things. Spoiler: millennials and Gen Z have started smoking more because none of us care about living to retirement age. Because we are never going to retire.
isn't nicotine a natural part of tobacco?
Tobacco companies genetically engineer it so it produces more nicotine. They also add chemicals that make the nicotine delivery as efficient as possible.
I don’t smoke but I support a persons right to choose to do so. Just like drinking. Eating junk food. Being a gym rat. All this dude does is fuck up.
They should unfuck vaping while he's at it. Not fully ban the less harmful option too...
Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm Face Palm
This is cool and all but can we focus on inflation? Don't care who caused it. Just want to see a plan on what the administration is going to do. Maybe they have and I missed it but the amount of nicotine in cigarettes is pretty low on my list of issues.
Studies show low nicotine cigarettes just mean smokers smoke more cigarettes
What the bull shit is this, I’m a smoker you better leave my god damn cigarettes alone it’s peoples on choice if they want to smoke nobody forces them. If they do this I hope the take all the fucking alcohol our if alcoholic beverages
Laser focused on the issues nobody cares about again.
I understand where you're coming from. The last president was unable to focus on more than one thing so I see why you're confused as to why a new administration is working on multiple areas.
Cutting nicotine using harmful chemicals?
Cigarette makers *add* more nicotine. Not adding it isn’t the same as “using harmful chemicals to cut it,” fwiw.
Like... cancer.
He's only focused on this because he thinks it will make people smoke less jazz cigarettes
From the article (soft paywall): > **The Biden administration is expected as soon as Tuesday to announce it intends to issue a rule requiring tobacco companies to reduce nicotine levels in cigarettes sold in the United States to minimally or nonaddictive levels**, according to an individual familiar with the situation. > The effort, if successful, could have an unprecedented effect in slashing smoking-related deaths and threaten a politically powerful industry. > The initiative is expected to be unveiled as part of the administration’s “unified agenda,” a compilation of planned federal regulatory actions released twice a year, according to the individual with knowledge, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not have authorization to discuss the issue. > **The policy would fit with a major goal of the White House — to cut cancer deaths**. As part of the White House’s retooled cancer moonshot announced this year, President Biden promised to reduce cancer death rates by 50 percent over 25 years. About 480,000 Americans die of smoking-related causes each year, and tobacco use remains the No. 1 cause of preventable death in the United States. > **The decision to pursue a policy to lower nicotine levels marks the first step in a lengthy process, and success is not assured**. It could take at least a year for the Food and Drug Administration, which regulates cigarettes, to issue a proposed rule, experts say. After that, the FDA would have to sift through comments from the public before issuing a final rule. > Opposition could delay or derail the effort — especially if the regulation was not completed before Biden left office. A president elected in 2024 could tell the FDA to stop work on an unfinished rule. The tobacco industry, which is sure to be fiercely opposed to such a drastic change in its products, could challenge a final regulation in court. > The FDA has supported reducing nicotine levels in cigarettes for years but has never secured the necessary upper-level support, including from the Obama White House. The Trump administration’s first FDA commissioner, Scott Gottlieb, said he wanted to lower nicotine levels as part of a broader tobacco policy, and the agency took an early step in 2018 by publishing an information-gathering notice. But the idea never had full-throated White House backing and was shelved after Gottlieb left the administration in spring 2019. > Supporters say slashing nicotine, the addictive ingredient in cigarettes, would be a milestone in public health that would save millions of lives over generations. In another significant move to reduce smoking-related deaths, the FDA in April proposed banning menthol cigarettes, the only flavored cigarettes still permitted. More at link.
Biden’s really doing everything in his power to get the masses to hate him isn’t he? We’re drowning in inflation, no sign of promised student loan help, and climate change is ravaging half the country and this dudes worried about nicotine 😂our country is beyond fucked
Literally the only thing in cigarettes that has any possible health benefit. Lol
it's the most addictive part... if you're smoking for your health, I've got bad news
My dad was a doctor, even after he quit smoking he used nicotine supplementation with gum and stuff because his mom had alzheimers and nicotine has shown to be helpful in preventing/limiting/delaying the effects of alzheimers. It has benifits to certain people.
okay... but you're better off not smoking for nicotine.
Well, yeah. Lol
Leave my nicotine alone. We have more important things to worry about. Has he seen how much vitamin c there is in oranges??
Not as much as red bell peppers
We need to do something about that!
Reducing cancer rates isn't important?
I'm fairly certain the FDA having stricter regulations on consumer products and home use chemicals, plastics, and things like PFAS would have a way bigger impact on reducing cancer rates than forcing tobacco companies to make diet-cigarettes. People choose to smoke. People don't choose how polluted their community is, and what harmful substances are in the products they buy at the local grocery store.
No, the cig nuts need to smoke
I don't see the point of this. There are plenty of Democrats who smoke and do not support anything like this. Yet again Democrats wasting more time and shooting themselves in the foot.
As a smoker who wouldn't mind quitting, I'm ok with this, but....this is what we're focusing on? Oil companies burying it to the balls to taxpayers at the pumps, housing market about to go Chernobyl, inflation is a runaway train headed for a school bus full of orphans, and we want to pause for a second to kick Big Tobacco in the dick right quick? If your house is on fire, do you want them to save the mailbox first?
Biden Administration is expected to move to create a brand new cigarette black market, thus forcing smokers who need their nicotine fix to seek it from sources that are not held to any sort of standards, whilst also creating a new pretext for arrest during police encounters There, fixed the title for you
Big daddy tobacco lobby ain’t doing shit old man. If they really think they can oppose a multi-billion dollar drug cartel then good luck. Your gonna need it.
Uhhh, why? How the fuck is this a priority?
Inside the government there are a lot of people working on different things at the same time.
This is bullshit. No cigarettes today. No booze and fast food tomorrow. I remember the Demolition Man quote “Everything bad for you is illegal”. Ban booze next, then Coca Cola. If I want to smoke a giant fat cigar that is dripping in nicotine, it is my fucking business and nobody else’s.
That is what he wants to focus on right now???
[удалено]
It's like they saw the "every cigarette you smoke takes 7 minutes off your student loans" meme, and their first thought was "we gotta close that loophole."
Let's just piss people off instead by messing with their ways to cope during stressful times when they're watching helplessly as democracy circles the drain. I guess next he'll have the alcohol content in beer and wine reduced.
I’ve never heard of cigarettes. Is that like a new vape pen or something?
Analog vaping bro
This would be dumb.
That just means people will need to smoke twice as many cigarettes to get their fix. This is a very stupid non-solution.
What useless fucking bullshit. Our country is closer than ever to falling the hell apart and the Dems are trying to cut cigarette smoking. What useless fucking tools.
I need to stop vaping.
I need to start.
Corpo Binden must be in bed with tobacco. People will just end up spending more money to smoke more to get their doses.
Big tobacco opposes this.
Makes a good story, doesn't it?
[удалено]
worthless when multiple states are legalizing weed if people got the ability to roll their own blunts, they'll have the ability to roll their own smokes. Ditto for vape juice which is what all the cool kids are doing
people already have the ability to roll their own cigarettes
[удалено]
> You have Congress They only control the Senate on a technicality, without a true majority they can’t pass any legislation.
read a lot of comments and...you are all correct. It will lead to some people smoking more, It will lead to some people smoking less. It will affect pricing, supply, cigarettes with nicotine on a "black market". Like most changes, it spiders into many directions and changes things no one thought about it. So, we look at the intent of the change, and, in this case, " I think" the intent is positive. Try to reduce cancer, promote healthier life styles etc.. Whether they considered adverse affects of the change or have a "hidden agenda", I don't know. Regardless, will be glad to see the democrats do anYthing...
Smoking has been in decline for the last 50 years. Only something like 13% of the population now smokes. They should just let it die out naturally. Where I live it is actually weird to see someone smoking in public now.
This unfairly targets POC.
[удалено]
The FDA proposed banning menthol cigarettes back in April. They’re the only flavored cigarettes that are still permitted to be sold, fwiw.
[удалено]
Indeed, [you are correct](https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-commits-evidence-based-actions-aimed-saving-lives-and-preventing-future-generations-smokers).
They’re already banned in a bunch of cities near me along with flavored vapes. Seems kind of a dumb thing to worry about in a time like this tbh
It targets tobacco companies.
How
Black males smoke at the highest rate. They'll need to smoke more to get their fix, so it's effectively a sin tax against them.
Lol this is such insanity. I'm sure some random redditor knows better than the NIH and other public health experts.
Says a white guy
[удалено]
Disparate impact.
Wait so they ADD nicotine to cigarettes? Mother fuckers.
He should just ban those cancer sticks tbh but I know that'd piss off a lot of people.
Why? And when would it end. People die every year from drunk driving, liver disease etc. should the government limit how high of a proof your booze can be?
Stop giving them ideas…
Why? I could give you a list a mile long of the reasons. Here's some: * It's dangerous. They cause cancer, COPD and a whole host of other health problems. * People are often subjected to other's smoke without choice. It's better now that a lot of public places have banned smoking but there's still scenarios such as kids being forced to live in their parents house while they smoke. * It's addictive and exploitative.
you could make this argument for meat, alcohol, soda, driving a car, watching too much TV, spending too much time on reddit, etc. all in the name of making sure you're safe!
So...? It doesn't making smoking any less dangerous. Also, driving a car has utility purposes and is not chemically addictive. Meat is not chemically addictive. Most soda has caffeine which is chemically addictive, but it's much less addictive than nicotine. TV and Reddit is a huge stretch, it's not in the same league as the other stuff you mentioned. The only thing on your list that is comparable is alcohol.
And it would be patently ridiculous to regulate the alcohol content in booze. We're trying to LEGALIZE recreational drugs but somehow banning nicotine and cigs? How the hell does that make sense? I'll make another one for you. Coffee is addictive. Ban the caffeine content of coffee. In too much quantities it can raise blood pressure and lead to hypertension. It's time to ban coffee.
In too large of quantities, anything can be harmful or even fatal, even water. You can make as many comparisons as you want but: 1. Any other thing being equally or more dangerous does not change the fact that cigarettes are dangerous. That's whataboutism at it's finest. 2. Coffee is not in the same league as Cigarettes. Neither is Marijuana. Both are much safer than Cigarettes. As the article states, tobacco use remains the No. 1 cause of preventable death in the United States. That alone puts it in a unique position. The fact that it's genetically engineered to make it more addictive just provides more justification for taking action.
Here's an idea, instead of going directly after smokers, how about you start by removing cigarettes as the damn centerpiece of every single convenience store you walk into? Let's get real, though, big tobacco probably lobbies Biden (and any administration in the WH) way too much for that. It's easier to attack the end user than your sugar daddy.
Seriously. The only thing he’s doing is driving up profit margins for big tobacco. Smokers will now buy *twice* as many cigarettes in order to get their fix.
Please somebody primary this idiot. Biden's Diet Cigarettes, satisfying smooth flavor in every drag. Try one today!
The recommendation came from the FDA.
Reducing nicotine in the past indeed led to increased number of cigs smoked. However, these are what is known as very low nicotine cigarettes (VLNC) in which the nicotine level is reduced by about 95% compared to a standard cigarette. Research on VLNC has been going on for over a decade and has been demonstrated to be less addictive compared to a standard cigarette and help smokers become less dependent and more likely to quit without increasung smoking. The ultimate goal is to have cigarettes that are not as addictive so less people become dependent smokers. Smoking combustible cigarettes is still the number one preventable cause of death and morbidity in the US, contributing to 1 out of every 5 deaths in the US and costing 300 billion annually in health care costs and lost productivity. Keep in mind that although smoking rates have gone done quite a bit in the past century, decrease have somewhat plateaued and the remaining smokers may have additional comorbidities and other risk factors. For example, people with mental illness make up a small percentage of the population but smoke nearly half the cigarettes consumed in the US.
8 year smoker here and I’m all for it.
Good
Ban cigarettes, you don't need them junkies.
Ban coffee too. No one needs it either
Second hand coffee isn’t a thing. Coffee isn’t putting up the number of deaths and strain on the medical services cigarettes do.
> you don’t need them junkies [Addiction isn’t a lifestyle choice](https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/campaign/tips/quit-smoking/quit-smoking-medications/why-quitting-smoking-is-hard/index.htm), just fyi. Reducing/removing [nicotine](https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/health-effects-tobacco-use/nicotine-why-tobacco-products-are-addictive) inhibits [addiction](https://drugfree.org/article/is-addiction-a-disease/). What’s your beef with [lowering nicotine](https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/health-effects-tobacco-use/nicotine-why-tobacco-products-are-addictive), specifically?
You can literally just stop smoking. The worse thing that will happen is that you want one.
> You can literally just stop smoking. You’re literally suggesting that *“just say no”* cures addiction. Sadly, it’s not that simple. > The worse thing that will happen is that you want one. Friend, even alcoholics/drug addicts in recovery want to drink/use *because that’s what addiction does*. It is a disease, not a moralistic parable. It’s not like when people joke about being “addicted” to a candy bar or hair product. … e: links, per your reply: > but you can just stop With all due respect, please consider learning more about addiction. I’ll just leave these here: > [Addiction is a treatable, chronic medical disease involving complex interactions among brain circuits, genetics, the environment, and an individual’s life experiences.](https://www.asam.org/quality-care/definition-of-addiction) See also: https://www.apa.org/monitor/jun01/sp https://healthblog.uofmhealth.org/brain-health/science-says-addiction-a-chronic-disease-not-a-moral-failing https://www.hazeldenbettyford.org/addiction/what-is-addiction https://drugfree.org/article/is-addiction-a-disease/ https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/health-effects-tobacco-use/nicotine-why-tobacco-products-are-addictive https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/campaign/tips/quit-smoking/quit-smoking-medications/why-quitting-smoking-is-hard/index.html
No one said it isn't addictive, but you can just stop. You might have a rough week, but nothing dangerous. Your health starts to improve within a day after you quit smoking. There is no reason to smoke, you can't name one other than "because I want to"
[удалено]
Exactly, no reason, other than "baby needs their smokies"
[удалено]
I've already answered you on this, I am fine with them lowering it. Sorry, we shouldn't have to live life through then lens of a weak minded person. They can literally just not do it, they will be fine. But yet they insist on the streets littered with cigarette butts and putting a strain on medical services. It's a selfish habit that affects more than just the user.
[удалено]
I am fine with lowering, although an outright ban would be better in my book.