- cross-posted to:
- news
- cross-posted to:
- news
You must log in or register to comment.
Sooo they will still cause cancer but won’t have the good stuff?
Maybe it’ll make more people choose smokeless tobacco, which is nowhere near as (but still quite) unhealthy?
But yeah this seems paradoxical, nicotine is the least of your worries if you smoke cigarettes.
Nicotine is the chemical that gets you hooked and there is a reason birds in cities have been observed using them to line their nests to protect against mites.
I mean not the best argument against nicotine, plants make all kinds of wacky stuff to deter pests that we eat up. Capsaicin, caffeine, etc.
That’s because nicotine–from whence neonicotinoids are derived–is an excellent insecticide. (Unfortunately neonicotinoids also kill beneficial insects, like pollinators, which is why their industrial usage is such a problem.)
Yeah, wanted someone else to mention that, due to the last time a crazy person came out the woodwork.
Now people will just smoke more
Edit: after considering the level of reduction I agree with the other commenter who said existing smokers will turn to vaping or pouches.
Also, I browse all mostly and didn’t catch the community. I sorry for bringing bad energy here.
That’s an odd take. Personally, I love nicotine but I rarely smoke because of the health problems. No point in smoking if there’s no nicotine.
Because people who are addicted go for the same hit of nicotine each time, therefore if there is less nicotine in each cigarette they will have to smoke more cigarettes to get their usual hit.
We’re talking ~95% drop in nicotine. You’d have to smoke 20 cigarettes in the same amount of time to get the same effect. With the price of smokes these days, no smoke options are going to look a lot more attractive.
Idk about that, here in the Netherlands there was a study that showed 50% would still continue smoking if the prices went up to €60 per small pack.
I should have been clear, I was referring only to current smokers.
That’s not how it works.
I mean existing smokers will be more likely to have another since one didn’t give them their usual fix.
At a ~95% drop in nicotine, they’d need 20 at the same time to get their fix
I may have glossed over the numbers. My bad. That’s quite the difference. Those who are already addicted are likely to find it elsewhere.
Edit:
Tobacco companies will need to cut nicotine levels to 0.7 milligrams per gram of tobacco, a fraction of the 17.2 milligrams per gram that most cigarette brands have on average.
Damn, that might actually get most smokers to switch to vaping chaw or zyn
That number doesn’t look right. EU caps it at 1.0 and I’ve never seen a cigarette over 0.8 and those are noticeably rougher than 0.6 which is standard. 17,2 would be crazy even for the US sized portions of things. Haven’t smoked in years but it couldn’t have changed this way.
I found the same but it’s an order of magnitude difference. My hypothesis is that it could be some metric/imperial conversion error that’s being parroted by multiple websites that didn’t spot it because that would require a point of reference.
BREAKING: FDA reverses nicotine agenda after an anonymous donor [Marlboro] makes a massive donation [$150.00] to an unaffiliated foundation [Drumpf fund for the growth of personal liquid assets] in an unforeseen turn of events!
Thank goodness. It’s about time the Republicans did something good and had to deal with the political fallout instead of relying on Democrats to do everything.
Wait, smoking is awesome!
