Nicotine in cigarettes, should government control it?

[bascule]

The information is already released, it's that nobody cares.

 

That's the problem:

 

http://tobaccodocuments.org/youth/CgHmPMI19800402.Me.html

 

The documents are out there. The tobacco companies admitted the problem (uranium progeny entering the production process through fertilizer which deposits a radioactive dust onto the sticky tobacco leaves), admitted they knew the solution, and wrote it off as "probably a valid but expensive point" in internal memos during the '80s which were released as part of the tobacco settlement.

 

And nobody cares.

 

Meanwhile it costs our healthcare system billions.

 

This guy (mentioned in the above paper) is from the National Center for Atmospheric Research here in Boulder. He fought the tobacco companies for years, and failed. Sadly, after he died the tobacco companies released the above document and others where they admit he was right:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Martell

 

Here's a paper where he measured radioactivity in cigarettes:

 

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/80/5/1285

[ecoli]

hm... are you allowed to grow your own tobacco?

 

It seems to me that that would eliminate some of your problems, if you have the space.

[ParanoiA]

Because freedom implies choice. People can only make valid choices if they have the relevant information.

 

It's not the governments responsibility to stop people choosing to smoke' date=' but i think it does have a responsibility to ensure that the public is given the relevant information. If products contain addictive compounds then it seems right that consumers know that so they are able to make informed choices rather that becoming inadvertantly addicted.[/quote']

 

I agree 100%. No more or less than that exactly. And this likely wouldn't have happened in the first place if the public was informed.

 

 

Thats an attitude that assumes people are always capable of acting in their own best interests.

 

No, actually I believe that's an attitude that assumes it's none of anybody's business how capable of acting on their own best interests you think they are. Personally, I don't care for somebody deciding for me what I can or can't do based on their assumption of what's best for me. Like motorcycle helmets, cigarettes, marjiuana, alcohol, aspirin, atheism, food...etc. Where is your idea of the logical end?

[Pangloss]

hm... are you allowed to grow your own tobacco?

 

It seems to me that that would eliminate some of your problems' date=' if you have the space.[/quote']

 

Interesting question. Does anybody have an answer on that? If so please pass it along. I'm curious myself.

[Tetrahedrite]

In Australia, you are not allowed to grow your own because the tobacco is taxed so heavily. Therefore if you grow your own you can sell it at a rediculous price because the value of the tobacco is artificially inflated by the amount of tax on it. It is probably similar in the States.

[gcol]

I think it is legal in the U.K., but only for your own use (not for sale). The problem is not growing it, but curing and processing to make it palatable. Rather like home brewing or good cooking, there is a lot of art, craft and knowhow to it.

 

Googling 'home grown tobacco' produces lots of background information on the legal position in different countries, and even between different states in USA.

[Glider]

In the UK, growing tobacco plants is legal. They're actually quite popular as border/bedding plants over here and many different cultivars are grown according to colour/size, e.g. nicotiana sandrea, nicotiana sylvestris, etc.

 

I don't know that many people harvest/smoke the leaves though.

[gcol]

You might try this for some general news on the world of homecured tobacco and its future restriction and taxation:

 

http://www.coffinails.com/tobacco_newsletter_2002.htm

[john5746]

I helped grow tobacco in Tennessee as a kid. I know that most small farmers no longer grow tobacco. I am not sure, but I think it is legal to grow a few plants for personal consumption. I would love to see Americans trying to make their own cigs though!

 

As far as the govt. getting involved, I think they should at least provide information on drug levels and regulate the % of the addictive drug contained. Another point though, if the nicotene levels are reduced, would people actually smoke more cigarettes, to get the nicotene they need? This might actually increase the health risk. Maybe reducing them slowly over time would be OK?

[ParanoiA]

I helped grow tobacco in Tennessee as a kid. I know that most small farmers no longer grow tobacco. I am not sure' date=' but I think it is legal to grow a few plants for personal consumption. I would love to see Americans trying to make their own cigs though!

 

As far as the govt. getting involved, I think they should at least provide information on drug levels and regulate the % of the addictive drug contained. Another point though, if the nicotene levels are reduced, would people actually smoke more cigarettes, to get the nicotene they need? This might actually increase the health risk. Maybe reducing them slowly over time would be OK?[/quote']

 

Furthermore, is it possible to produce tobacco with zero nicotine? I would think with all of the genetic engineering going on, we could have some interesting smoking choices.

[bascule]

Furthermore, is it possible to produce tobacco with zero nicotine?

 

Hmm, well, based solely on the fact that tobacco is of the genus Nicotiana, I'm going to guess: NO. Not without GMO/lots of selective breeding.

 

I would think with all of the genetic engineering going on, we could have some interesting smoking choices.

 

First they have to fix the production process. That's a hell of a lot easier than genetic engineering.

[ParanoiA]

Hmm, well, based solely on the fact that tobacco is of the genus Nicotiana, I'm going to guess: NO. Not without GMO/lots of selective breeding[/b'].

 

So that's a yes?

 

First they have to fix the production process. That's a hell of a lot easier than genetic engineering.

 

So it's possible then?

 

Funny how the answer can be right under our nose while we bicker about laws...

[john5746]

Furthermore, is it possible to produce tobacco with zero nicotine? I would think with all of the genetic engineering going on, we could have some interesting smoking choices.

 

1) Nicotine isn't the only bad thing in cigarettes.

 

2) Nicotine is the drug the people are trying to get from smoking. I am guessing without nicotine, people would not smoke.

[ParanoiA]

1) Nicotine isn't the only bad thing in cigarettes.

 

2) Nicotine is the drug the people are trying to get from smoking. I am guessing without nicotine' date=' people would not smoke.[/quote']

 

The OP is about nicotine. The worst part about cigarettes is tar isn't it? And is there anything you can smoke that isn't bad for you? Smoking things doesn't seem like something the lungs were meant to handle so I would guess there's all kinds of bad things in cigarettes. But it's the nicotine they use to hook us.

 

And as a former smoker, I can tell you that people would still smoke without the nicotine. It's been almost 2 years and I still fantasize about smoking a cigarette sometimes. I still smoke something else though, in fractional quantities of course, and I've increased its use a little - obviously compensating for the lack of cigarettes.

 

I doubt that's the effects of nicotine alone. Without nicotine, addiction would become mental only which would be so much easier to deal with. People could actually quit smoking by the opposite method used today. Rather than take in nicotine through a patch and stop the ritual, practice the ritual without the nicotine. Soon the habit is only mental and can be cut back easily. An unproven hypothesis, but it would be interesting at least.

[john5746]

And as a former smoker' date=' I can tell you that people would still smoke without the nicotine. It's been almost 2 years and I still fantasize about smoking a cigarette sometimes. I still smoke something else though, in fractional quantities of course, and I've increased its use a little - obviously compensating for the lack of cigarettes.

[/quote']

 

Well, people do drink decaf coffee, so maybe... If "the other" thing helps people get off cigs, then that would be the best argument to making it legal, since it is easier to quit that then cigs.

[bascule]

The OP is about nicotine. The worst part about cigarettes is tar isn't it?

 

The worst part of cigarettes is the radionucletides, particularly polonium-210 which deposits itself at bronchial bifurcations. Since it forms insoluable compounds, it isn't cleared from the lungs by normal biological processes, and bombards lung tissue with ionizing alpha radiation.

 

Is it possible to produce cigarettes free of nicotine? Yes. Will people want them? Well, only as much as they want decaf coffee... likely much less.

 

Nicotine isn't a carcinogen. A better place to start would be getting rid of the carcinogens in cigarettes, at least as much as possible. (there are carcinogens you can't really get rid of, such as benzopyrene)

[ParanoiA]

The worst part of cigarettes is the radionucletides' date=' particularly polonium-210 which deposits itself at bronchial bifurcations. Since it forms insoluable compounds, it isn't cleared from the lungs by normal biological processes, and bombards lung tissue with ionizing alpha radiation.

 

Is it [i']possible[/i] to produce cigarettes free of nicotine? Yes. Will people want them? Well, only as much as they want decaf coffee... likely much less.

 

Nicotine isn't a carcinogen. A better place to start would be getting rid of the carcinogens in cigarettes, at least as much as possible. (there are carcinogens you can't really get rid of, such as benzopyrene)

 

Interesting. How safe could cigarettes actually be after getting rid of the carcinogens as much as possible?

 

The fact that manufacturers haven't taken any of these steps in their competition with the market place kind of blows a hole in my theory about legalized drugs. I always thought if narcotics were legalized, that the consumer desire for safety would drive the private sector into research and development of "safe" versions of these drugs. I use the word "safe" loosely, because I'm sure you can only go so far with it.

 

The fact cigarette manufacturers haven't even tried this is disappointing. I would have thought with all of this negative momentum towards cigarette companies and smoking in general, that someone would have tried to become the "good guy" of the tobacco market.

[Aardvark]

Interesting. How safe could cigarettes actually be after getting rid of the carcinogens as much as possible?

 

Very safe. Products have been mad without any radioactivity or tar or carbon monoxide.

 

The fact that manufacturers haven't taken any of these steps in their competition with the market place kind of blows a hole in my theory about legalized drugs.

 

The manufacters have taken those steps. They were bitterly criticised by anti smoking campaigners and forced to withdraw the safer cigarettes from the market.

 

 

The fact cigarette manufacturers haven't even tried this is disappointing. I would have thought with all of this negative momentum towards cigarette companies and smoking in general, that someone would have tried to become the "good guy" of the tobacco market.

 

The cigarette manufacturers were told that making a 'safer' cigarette was wrong and that they must immediately stop or be liable for serious legal action against them.

[ParanoiA]

The manufacters have taken those steps. They were bitterly criticised by anti smoking campaigners and forced to withdraw the safer cigarettes from the market.

 

The cigarette manufacturers were told that making a 'safer' cigarette was wrong and that they must immediately stop or be liable for serious legal action against them.

 

Why must my countrymen make glorious asses of themselves?

 

This is also one aspect of capitalism I've never liked. The tendency of business to comply rather than spend the money to fight the good fight.

 

I'm going to have to read about this. I'm guessing the "smokeless" cigarette was part of this initiative. I was about 16 when that was on the market.

[Aardvark]

Why must my countrymen make glorious asses of themselves?

 

If it's any consolation, it's not just your countrymen.(although that might also be a depressing thought:eek: )

 

This is also one aspect of capitalism I've never liked. The tendency of business to comply rather than spend the money to fight the good fight.

 

Agreed, businesses so often behave in a totally spineless fashion, simply making a cost benefit analysis and then going with the cheapest option, regardless of any principle, dignity or regard to common sense or even basic morality.

 

I'm going to have to read about this. I'm guessing the "smokeless" cigarette was part of this initiative. I was about 16 when that was on the market.

 

Yes, here's a link you might find interesting as a very basic intro http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/cigarette/

[ParanoiA]

Yes, here's a link you might find interesting as a very basic intro [url']http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/cigarette/[/url]

 

Interesting reading. I thought most of the alternatives to cigarettes sounded kinda goofy. I wouldn't have switched to any of those methods described.

 

The ones that sound more promising are the techniques that attempt to change the tobacco plant itself. And I'm a little discouraged at the success rate of that. I'm also pleasantly surprised tobacco companies are still attempting to create this "safe" cigarette despite the road blocks that anti-smoking zealots have put up.

 

Of course, it may really be because they know the socialists are getting more and more avid about outlawing it so they're trying to get a jump on the market. I don't know. But it sure is discouraging seeing the ridiculous resistance being put forth by anti-smoking whine bags.

 

Thanks for the link.

[Aardvark]

Interesting reading. I thought most of the alternatives to cigarettes sounded kinda goofy. I wouldn't have switched to any of those methods described.

 

Then again, a product where dried leaves are rolled up in a paper tube, burnt and the customer breaths in the smoke sounds kinda goofy to me too.

 

 

But it sure is discouraging seeing the ridiculous resistance being put forth by anti-smoking whine bags.

 

 

It makes me wonder about those peoples mindsets. A health campaigner was on the news the other day denouncing a new type of low fat icecream, as 'it might encourage people to think theey can eat all they want and not have a balanced diet'

 

I think they basically hate to see people have fun and be happy:-(