Removing/reducing nicotine in Cigarettes - good idea or nanny state gone to far?

dowie

dowie

dowie

Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
59,125
Looks like we might see this happen in the US (unless big tobacco lobbyists scupper it) and you can bet that if it works there then other western countries will pay attention to it:

The Biden administration said Tuesday it plans to develop a rule requiring tobacco companies to reduce nicotine levels in cigarettes sold in the United States to minimally or nonaddictive levels, an effort that, if successful, could have an unprecedented effect in slashing smoking-related deaths and threaten a politically powerful industry.

The initiative was included in the administration’s “unified agenda,” a compilation of planned federal regulatory actions released twice a year. The spring agenda was released Tuesday.
The administration notice said the Food and Drug Administration intends by May 2023 to develop a proposed standard “that would establish a maximum nicotine level in cigarettes and certain finished tobacco products.”

In a statement released late Tuesday, the FDA said the goal is “to reduce youth use, addiction and death.” If nicotine were reduced, many addicted users would have a greater ability to quit, and young people could be prevented from becoming regular smokers, the agency said.
Click to expand...

Would that actually work for regular/already addicted smokers like would they be incentivised to switch to gum/patches etc.. containing more nicotine instead or would they just smoke even more to get their fix?

Does it matter, in the long run, if it stops future generations from becoming addicted? Like supposing existing addicts might need to buy more cigarettes to get a nicotine fix but future generations simply don't get hooked on it to begin with even if they go through the typical teenage rebel phase of smoking a bit.

Or is it all just government overreach/nanny state gone too far?

Having said that there was plenty of screeching about the cigarette ban in pubs etc.. before that came into force and how they'd all close down or how pubs would be awful afterward but in reality, it's been fine and quite a good change even.
 
The minimum smoking age should be raised annually by one year. So this year it's 18 (or whatever), next year it's 19, then it's 20.

It's not rocket science, within a generation, nobody will smoke. I've been saying this for over twenty years.
 
Feek said:
The minimum smoking age should be raised annually by one year. So this year it's 18 (or whatever), next year it's 19, then it's 20.

It's not rocket science, within a generation, nobody will smoke. I've been saying this for over twenty years.
Click to expand...

Seems such a simple solution.
 
Should ban the sale of cigs in the UK. I can't justify protecting younger people while not offering the same protection to older people. If they end up getting them another way then so be it.
 
Don’t ban it or the sale of it. Make it a luxury item for which a premium must be paid in specialist outlet stores.

If a pack of fags cost £30 and wasn’t sold in supermarkets, petrol stations, corner shops and pretty much everywhere then we would almost certainly see fewer smokers.
 
I'm on the fence on this - there are plenty of things which to many people make zero sense but some people still want to do - as long as the impact to other people is zero or reasonably mitigated. (Sure someone smoking themselves to death can have an impact on their family etc. but that is another matter).

Should we also ban people from anything which might hurt them? motor sports, hurling themselves off cliffs for fun (diving), etc. etc.
 
daveatherton.wordpress.com

The true costs of treating smokers, the obese and the healthy

In 2008 the Dutch government looked into the cost of treating people from the age of 20 to death. They had three categories, the healthy, obese and smokers. The results were not what the health gur…
daveatherton.wordpress.com daveatherton.wordpress.com


The lifetime costs were in Euros:

Healthy: 281,000

Obese: 250,000

Smokers: 220,000
Click to expand...


Tax gyms healthy people are costing the tax payers a fortune .
 
Feek said:
The minimum smoking age should be raised annually by one year. So this year it's 18 (or whatever), next year it's 19, then it's 20.

It's not rocket science, within a generation, nobody will smoke. I've been saying this for over twenty years.
Click to expand...

Maybe, or at least if that carried on you'd eventually make it 100% illegal in like 100 years time and therefore stop it regardless.

I like the idea in principle, the argument that it's never been legal for X generation to smoke so it just becomes illegal in the end anyway but a lot of smokers start smoking before they're legally allowed to anyway, kids at school were starting at like 12, 13 etc. so it might just mean people getting others to buy cigarettes for them for the next few decades.

Essentially if your aim is to outlaw it then maybe best to just do that and offer nicotine patches or just do what Biden is proposing and remove (most of) the nicotine.
 
Ban it outright don't mess about with half measures. Yes people will still smoke just like they smoke weed or take other drugs
 
Rroff said:
I'm on the fence on this - there are plenty of things which to many people make zero sense but some people still want to do - as long as the impact to other people is zero or reasonably mitigated. (Sure someone smoking themselves to death can have an impact on their family etc. but that is another matter).

Should we also ban people from anything which might hurt them? motor sports, hurling themselves off cliffs for fun (diving), etc. etc.
Click to expand...
Also this. The argument about the cost to the NHS seems like a good one until you consider just how many things people do just for enjoyment that could be deemed somewhat dangerous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom