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

[ttaskmaster]

Having come off nicotine through vaping, and experimenting with various strengths of vape fluid, I disagree that nicotine isn't the major element in addiction.

There was little difference in the nagging urges, whether I was on 18 mg/ml, or 3 mg/ml....any amount of nicotine was enough to keep the addiction going.

As soon as I shifted to 0% nicotine vape fluid....the urge to vape disappeared and I chucked the vape within two weeks. Haven't touched nicotine since, that was 4-5 years ago now.

Firstly - Congratulations.
How long were you vaping before you went down to 0% nic?

Secondly - The various studies on low nic cigs and associated addctions asserted that the threshold for nicotine addiction was very low, less than 0.5mg and often lower among those who never smoked before, and concurred with your statement that there was no discernible diference between nic quantities above that threshold.
However, there are also plenty of studies asserting that vaping is less addictive than smoking anyway, which is why it's been such an effective NRT compared to all the other options like gum and patches.

So you have the aforementioned blind reinforcement studies - Of those who tested positive for addiction, half of those were on placebos. If nicotine were the major addictive element, those people on placebos would not have tested positive. Instead they're showing 'addition' to nothing...
Add to this these two decades of FDA studies that found lowering nicotine in cigarettes did not affect smoking cessation. What they did show is that nic reduction did result in slightly reduced nicotine dependence... and yet people still smoked the same.

The problem is not one of nicotine addiction, but one of social acceptance and programme compliance.
There are numerous factors that affect both addiction to smoking and the success rate of cessation. Nicotine is a contributing factor and lowering it would help a little, but it is not the defining one.
Price increases have had little effect on things like this and prohibition generally does not work... however, the pub bans on smoking showed that social acceptability is a powerful driving factor. Many young smokers seem to start smoking due to peer pressure too, so I would argue that a collective effort to further the widespread public opinion of smoking being unacceptable is the most effective strategy.

In fact, 'unacceptable' is not even a strong enough term - You'd need to make the idea of smoking and being a smoker utterly despised throughout society. You want peer pressure to swing the other way and have all the cool kids making fun of smokers.
The government telling you not to do something is one thing, but everyone else shaming and completely ostracising you for it is far more effective.

 

[R.P.L]

NHS resources are not allocated using an S&OP framework. They are spread thinly to do everything as everyone is entitled to care.

Edit: in case I am coming off righteous, I smoked for 10 years

Well I don't know the intimate details of NHS resource allocation, but if the budget isn't somewhat flexible to allow for changes in demand then that would seem nonsensical (which doesn't make it impossible of course).

For the record, I also smoked for years. I agree with the smoking ban in public buildings because non-smokers shouldn't have to inhale second-hand smoke, but I do think that people should have the choice of whether to smoke or not (and how much nicotine they consume). The healthcare question is a tricky one anyway because the mandate of the NHS is to provide healthcare to all who need it, and it's not as if smokers are the only people who don't look after their health.

 

[mid_gen]

Firstly - Congratulations.
How long were you vaping before you went down to 0% nic?

Secondly - The various studies on low nic cigs and associated addctions asserted that the threshold for nicotine addiction was very low, less than 0.5mg and often lower among those who never smoked before, and concurred with your statement that there was no discernible diference between nic quantities above that threshold.
However, there are also plenty of studies asserting that vaping is less addictive than smoking anyway, which is why it's been such an effective NRT compared to all the other options like gum and patches.

So you have the aforementioned blind reinforcement studies - Of those who tested positive for addiction, half of those were on placebos. If nicotine were the major addictive element, those people on placebos would not have tested positive. Instead they're showing 'addition' to nothing...
Add to this these two decades of FDA studies that found lowering nicotine in cigarettes did not affect smoking cessation. What they did show is that nic reduction did result in slightly reduced nicotine dependence... and yet people still smoked the same.

The problem is not one of nicotine addiction, but one of social acceptance and programme compliance.
There are numerous factors that affect both addiction to smoking and the success rate of cessation. Nicotine is a contributing factor and lowering it would help a little, but it is not the defining one.
Price increases have had little effect on things like this and prohibition generally does not work... however, the pub bans on smoking showed that social acceptability is a powerful driving factor. Many young smokers seem to start smoking due to peer pressure too, so I would argue that a collective effort to further the widespread public opinion of smoking being unacceptable is the most effective strategy.

In fact, 'unacceptable' is not even a strong enough term - You'd need to make the idea of smoking and being a smoker utterly despised throughout society. You want peer pressure to swing the other way and have all the cool kids making fun of smokers.
The government telling you not to do something is one thing, but everyone else shaming and completely ostracising you for it is far more effective.

I vaped for around a year before I went to zero nicotine and packed it in. Smoked for 20+ years previously.

It seems like we're agreeing here? It doesn't really matter how much nicotine is in cigarettes (or vapes), any amount is enough to keep you hooked. So reducing nic levels is probably not going to achieve anything. Unless you can people onto 0% cigarettes (which I don't think is a thing?), then you need to concentrate on getting people to stop smoking, not get them smoking different stuff.

 

[ttaskmaster]

I vaped for around a year before I went to zero nicotine and packed it in. Smoked for 20+ years previously.

It seems like we're agreeing here? It doesn't really matter how much nicotine is in cigarettes (or vapes), any amount is enough to keep you hooked. So reducing nic levels is probably not going to achieve anything. Unless you can people onto 0% cigarettes (which I don't think is a thing?), then you need to concentrate on getting people to stop smoking, not get them smoking different stuff.

I believe we pretty much are in agreement, yes, especially about the reduction not being effective.
Moving to zero nic seems to be a stumbling point for the FDA, as they're somehow prohibited from going this far, hence this reduction initiative which is under question.
I further question the smoking of anything, even zero-nic cigs, as there's clearly something beyond the nicotine that keeps these people puffing away when their NRT brethren have a far greater (and less damaging) handle on their nicotine consumption.

Cultural and social change seems to be the better approach, not just in smoking cessation, but in many other things. I'd be curious to see how it would influence things like obesity (reversing the whole body-positive mentality so averse to fat-shaming), or racism and sexism perhaps...

 

[Stumble Bum]

So, I/we have lower intelligence then. Compared to what, whom? A dog, mushroom?

Than non-smokers obviously. How does this even need explaining? It's ironic given you're trying to claim you're not stupid.

I wont tell you why it's not stupid to smoke because I don't think anyone has said it's not stupid to smoke including myself.
Smokers know its stupid to smoke. It doesn't make them stupid for doing so.

I mean my main point was that it is very stupid to smoke, the act of doing so is indeed pretty stupid. So it would seem you agree.

I know many, many clever, highly intelligent and successful people. Guess what? They smoke too. You must be a ******* genius if you don't smoke.

For what it's worth my wife is highly intelligent and I consider myself pretty intelligent also, certainly not stupid.

Do you really think generalisations are a blanket statement to apply to every single individual. Of course a very intelligent person could also smoke, why are you getting so personally triggered?

There are studies out there whereby the sample of random people who smoke vs the non-smokers showed the non-smokers clearly had a higher I.Q. I'd say that resonates well with the general view that stupid people are more likely to be the ones who smoke.

Anyway I stand by my main point that smoking itself is stupid hence why it is sometimes referred to as a stupid tax. Why you get so offended by that can only suggest you have some real insecurities around the subject of intelligence.

 

[ttaskmaster]

There are studies out there whereby the sample of random people who smoke vs the non-smokers showed the non-smokers clearly had a higher I.Q. I'd say that resonates well with the general view that stupid people are more likely to be the ones who smoke.

STUPIDITY, med. jur. That state of the mind which cannot perceive and embrace the data presented to it by the senses; and therefore the stupid person can, in general, form no correct judgment. It is a want of the perceptive powers. Ray, Med. Jur. c. 3, Sec. 40. Vide Imbecility.

I was always surprised at how many doctors and nurses you'd see in the smoking rooms, given that you'd think they have fairly high IQs and know very well what the smoking risks are... but then I expect the argument would be that they stupidly took high stress jobs that drive them to smoke, especially in the NHS. I'm fairly certain that all the people I know with doctorates in other fields (Civils, aeronautical engineering (which really is rocket science), microbiology, virology), which you'd also associate with high IQs, are also smokers... interestingly, several of these latter ones are also part-time stoners.

Thing is, a low IQ does not mean you're stupid. Some of the smartest people in the world still do very stupid things. In most cases, the higher IQ just means they're better at not getting prosecuted for it, or at least have a job that pays well enough for them to afford the bribe!

 

[Droolinggimp]

edit can't be bothered.