Reducing nicotine content in cigs...

[vinnie97]

Other than being a half-measure to "save the children," how does this solve anything other than make smoking more hazardous and expensive (as a result of needing more to get the same buzz)?

Oh, I know...it's a money grab and little else:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20...latchy/3257729

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama , who still struggles with his own addiction to cigarettes, on Monday signed into law the most sweeping federal anti-tobacco legislation to pass Congress in decades.

The law gives the Food and Drug Administration broad authority to regulate the marketing and manufacture of tobacco products. It bans fruit- and spice-flavored cigarettes, slaps expansive new warnings on packages and gets rid of the monikers "light" and "low-tar."

It also allows the FDA to order manufacturers to reduce — though not eliminate — the amount of the addictive chemical nicotine that's in cigarettes.

With children onstage and sprinkled in the audience at the Rose Garden ceremony, and with the new playground for the presidential daughters in the distance, Obama said that the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act would curtail the "constant, insidious" advertising that tobacco companies targeted at children.

He pointed out that nearly 90 percent of smokers start before age 18.

"I know; I was one of those teenagers," Obama said in his speech. "I know how hard it is to break the habit once you've started."

Tobacco-related diseases cost an estimated $100 billion a year to treat and kill nearly 400,000 Americans annually.

" FDA oversight over tobacco products will fundamentally change the entire tobacco industry and will save countless lives in the decades to come," said Stephen J. Nolan , the chairman of the American Lung Association's board of directors.

Among those at the White House on Monday was Rep. G.K. Butterfield , a Democrat from Wilson, N.C. , where auctioneers used to rattle off leaf prices after harvest each fall. He represents one of the heaviest tobacco-farming districts in the nation.

"This has been a very difficult issue for me," Butterfield said. "But when I take a step back and look at it objectively, there's no question we need to reduce smoking. . . . We need to be realistic about the issue."

Also present was Rep. Henry Waxman , D- Calif. , one of the measure's primary proponents, but another prominent backer, Sen. Edward Kennedy , D- Mass. , who's undergoing treatment for brain cancer, was not.

"Decade after decade, Big Tobacco has seduced millions of teenagers into lifetimes of addiction and premature death," Kennedy said in a statement. "Enactment of this legislation will finally put a stop to that. It is truly a lifesaving act, and a welcome demonstration that this Congress is capable of enacting major health reform."

Tobacco companies spent millions opposing the bill, though the country's top tobacco company, Altria , the owner of Philip Morris of Virginia , supported it in what opponents labeled a cynical move to use the measure's restrictions on advertising to maintain the market dominance of Philip Morris' leading brand, Marlboro .

In a sign of tobacco's waning power, however, the legislation passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, even as a Gallup Poll released Monday found that 52 percent opposed the law, while 46 percent approved. The telephone survey was conducted June 14-17 and had a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

Sens. Richard Burr , a Republican, and Kay Hagan , a Democrat, both of North Carolina , fought the legislation fiercely.

Burr, whose hometown of Winston-Salem is the headquarters for the Reynolds American tobacco company, stretched debate on the Senate floor to nearly two weeks in an effort to slow the bill. He argued that the FDA was ill-equipped to handle new regulatory duties.

Hagan, whose hometown of Greensboro is home to the Lorillard tobacco company, was the only Democrat in the Senate who voted against the bill. She argued that it would cost manufacturing jobs and hurt tobacco farmers.

Obama and other supporters said that the law was a victory over the deceit and power of tobacco companies' lobby on Capitol Hill .

"Since at least the middle of the last century, we've known about the harmful and often deadly effects of tobacco products," the president said.

Earlier this month, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs acknowledged that the president continues his personal fight against cigarettes. However, Obama ignored a question from the press gallery Monday as he was shaking visitors' hands after the ceremony.

"Mr. President, how difficult has your struggle been with smoking?" CNN's Dan Lothian asked.

Obama glanced up, then turned away.

[cyclemomma]

Originally Posted by vinnie97

Other than being a half-measure to "save the children," how does this solve anything other than make smoking more hazardous and expensive (as a result of needing more to get the same buzz)?

Oh, I know...it's a money grab and little else:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20...latchy/3257729

The only thing that cost more in healthcare is obesity. But that just goes to show you that even something that is life sustaining, such as food, like air and water, something that we need to live, can kill us if we consume it to excess.. All things in moderation.. be it food, drink, sex, mind altering experiences... can enhance our lifes and our ability to live together.

[vinnie97]

Well, cigs aren't safe at any level of consumption due to the inherent toxins that emanate from the fumes. And the proposed nicotine reduction merely increases the cigarette-smoking threshold for current smokers, thereby costing them more in money and health.

The only benefit I can assess from this is new smokers will not sense much of a buzz due to the lower nicotine content and will thus be encouraged to quit before even giving addiction the opportunity to take hold...but that's only theoretical coming from a nonsmoker and I have no proof this will be the actual effect of less nicotine content (it could also have the opposite effect: binge-smoking!).

[Damnsammit]

Meh, we should just all quit smoking because the government doesn't want us to anymore.

Hopefully they don't ban drinking until after I have kids.

[Nyteshade]

Originally Posted by vinnie97

Well, cigs aren't safe at any level of consumption due to the inherent toxins that emanate from the fumes. And the proposed nicotine reduction merely increases the cigarette-smoking threshold for current smokers, thereby costing them more in money and health.

The only benefit I can assess from this is new smokers will not sense much of a buzz due to the lower nicotine content and will thus be encouraged to quit before even giving addiction the opportunity to take hold...but that's only theoretical coming from a nonsmoker and I have no proof this will be the actual effect of less nicotine content (it could also have the opposite effect: binge-smoking!).

As an ex-smoker who has occasionally puffed on a cigarette since I stopped, it will have no effect. When you first start smoking, you get a buzz regardless of how much nicotine is in it. My first cigarette was some ultra-light and I got a major buzz off of that. The first time I had a Marlboro Red, I got a little dizzy from it. Like any stimulant though, you build a tolerance to it and this law will make it to where smokers will smoke even more cigarettes to achieve that same high.

[Deff Gordon]

i thought lights have the same shit as regulars... they just allow more air in at the filter. at least that's what i was told.

[thumpcbd]

Originally Posted by Nyteshade

Like any stimulant though, you build a tolerance to it and this law will make it to where smokers will smoke even more cigarettes to achieve that same high.

And you will be paying more taxes to get the same effect...

[name change request]

the govt has to find a way to make more taxes so we'll need the extra billions from the smokers after they have to buy extra smokes

just quit smoking, shit is nasty.

[C-fer]

Originally Posted by Deff Gordon

i thought lights have the same shit as regulars... they just allow more air in at the filter. at least that's what i was told.

Your are correct sir

[djetaine]

Wait... so I wont be able to buy cloves anymore?? FUCK THAT.

[Tyler Durden]

Originally Posted by Damnsammit

Meh, we should just all quit smoking because the government doesn't want us to anymore.

Hopefully they don't ban drinking until after I have kids.

No because they'll lose that source of revenue. It'll need to be replaced if it's banned. Maybe something "less harmful" like pot can be legalized and still bring in tax money.

If they really wanted to eliminate it as a health risk they'd ban it flat out. There's a chance that some people will smoke more and therefore purchase more which will result in an increase in tax revenue. Good thing only people who make over $250k smoke so they're the ones getting the tax increase.

[PETA]

If we were running into a problem with teenagers drinking and we wished to stop it would we slap the knuckles of the liquor industry or the idiots selling alcohol to minors?

[Sinner]

Originally Posted by Nyteshade

My first cigarette was some ultra-light and I got a major buzz off of that.

I doubt I could even get through 1/3rd of ANY cigarette b4 I'd start getting a buzz.

A whole one might even make me throw up.

[C-fer]

Originally Posted by djetaine

Wait... so I wont be able to buy cloves anymore?? FUCK THAT.

Yea no bullshit. I don't smoke them regularly, but I like to have the option available. I put this on the same level as banning smoking in bars.

[Sinner]

Originally Posted by C-fer

I put this on the same level as banning smoking in bars.

Rabble Rabble Rabble!
*sandyvagina!*
Rabble Rabble Rabble!


remember when they banned smoking in airplanes? man, that was REALLY fucked up.