America Just Kinda, Sorta Banned Cigarettes

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...moking/681334/

Quote:

---

Today, regulators at the FDA announced that they are pushing forward with a rule that would dramatically limit how much nicotine can go in a cigarette. The average cigarette nowadays is estimated to have roughly 17 milligrams of the drug. Under the new regulation, that would fall to less than one milligram. If enacted—still a big if—it would decimate the demand for cigarettes more effectively than any public-service announcement ever could.
…

---

yeah make weed legal instead, Canada already did that

Holy shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXX-er

yeah make weed legal instead, Canada already did that

---

Let's just hope they don't go after THC

That’ll never stand. Regulations are going away, along with a lot of other things.

Haven’t you heard?

yeah, just like when they "banned" menthols?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXX-er

yeah make weed legal instead, Canada already did that

---

The whole thing? Really? I thought it was just BC. When did that happen?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn

The whole thing? Really? I thought it was just BC. When did that happen?

---

2018

And I agree that there is no way the FDA regulates cigs with the new administration coming in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stealurface831

yeah, just like when they "banned" menthols?

---

Well, that was a racist plot. Taking the population cold turkey from a 17 to 1 dose. Gonna be a whole lot of spousal abuse and road rage for a while.

Everyone knows cigs are addictive and bad for you. Everyone that smokes makes the conscious decision to do so because they like it and understand the trade offs. Even still, the majority of smokers never develop lung cancer, which is a fact most people don't know.

You can make the same argument against skiing as it is inherently dangerous, even says so right on your ticket. We going to regulate that away even though the majority of skiers will never receive a traumatic injury? Seems very American.

Yeah, that’s a stupid regulation. Let people smoke, it’s all some people have


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Is smoking only harmed the smoker I wouldn’t give a shit.

The fact is, we pay out billions to cover the healthcare cost of dying smokers.

Figure out a way that we don’t have to pay for the smokers to die, and I am all for letting people smoke.

Until then fuck those people people.

That is such a bullshit argument. We pay out billions (trillions?) for the healthcare for every dying person in the country, regardless of vice.

You going to legislate away laziness, because plenty more people die from just sitting on their ass than do of smoking? Why should insurance exist at all? I shouldn't have to pay for your heart surgery, not my heart.

Or how about we apply that logic to everything. Why should people without kids pay for schools, or those that don't live on your street pay for the maintenance?

I mean fuck those people.

Bless your heart.

He’s right m series. You want to ban food, alcohol, sloth, bad genetics etc too?

“Bless your heart”is a lazy retort.

Fact


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Or how about we apply that logic to everything. Why should people without kids pay for schools, or those that don't live on your street pay for the maintenance?

---

Hmmmm, lessee here.

An educated population tends to benefit society. Your version of logic notwithstanding.

Streets provide benefits for everyone regardless of if they drive an auto or not.

Ciggies cause cancer, of that there is no argument.

Seems like dumb logic.

However, if health insurance companies begin to refuse coverage to smokers, you would be fine with that, right? Same with fat bastards who eat crap and don't get any exercise.

Quote:

---

He’s right m series. You want to ban food, alcohol, sloth, bad genetics etc too?

“Bless your heart”is a lazy retort.

Fact

---

I do believe the US already has a history of regulating cancer causing products and chemicals. By reducing the nicotine level the desire to smoke tobacco will be reduced, not banned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn

He’s right m series. You want to ban food, alcohol, sloth, bad genetics etc too?

“Bless your heart”is a lazy retort.

Fact


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

we already do. Try getting an organ transplant if you’re an alcoholic. try getting a knee replacement if you’re overweight.

and you do know that sloth fever isn’t really caused by sloth bites right?


bless your heart is a legitimate response to a well known troll.

People can and do get liver transplants if they’re alcoholic, we do TKRs on obese people every day. How do I know? I see it at work.

Yes, they require people to stop drinking for their transplant, many continue to drink after.

As far as regulating alcohol and tobacco it only extends to warning labels and limiting sales to people over twenty one.

I guess if you’re paying attention you would see that in spite of all the warnings people continue to do things against their best interests and it extends beyond vice.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

hold up.

as i understand it, nicotine itself isn't carcinogenic. it is the tobacco and all the other shit. and lets be honest, the people who are still pack a daying it in in the year of our lord 2025 aint gonna quit just because the cigs dont got as much nicotine. quitting is for pussies and these people are not pussies. they are just gonna start smoking a fuck ton more. so just multiplying carcinogen intake while playing catch up to the buzz.

killing people is the most effective way to get them to quit smoking.

Any of you read the article?

The Nicotine Industrial Complex has many alternative approaches to selling this addiction. Phillip Morris owns Zyn.

As for the orange cheeto, it’s simplistic to think he’s anti-regulation across the board. He doesn’t have any cogent or consistent ideology other than self interest and screwing his perceived enemies or advancing a pet project he’s fixated on. He’s made it clear for decades that he’s anti-alcohol and anti-smoking. The article isn’t saying Trump will or won’t let this stand but suggesting it’s not clear at this point.

Would smokers attempt to compensate for the low nicotine level by smoking more? Or would they simply combine a cigarette (still legal and available) with other nicotine delivery systems? I haven’t read the addiction research in a long time, but a lot of the addiction in that old research comes from how smoking provides a socially acceptable way of sucking your thumb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m2711c

Try getting an organ transplant if you’re an alcoholic

---

Attachment 510159

Lol

When does the Biden administration ever get is way. ....Never happen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunion 2020

Hmmmm, lessee here.

An educated population tends to benefit society. Your version of logic notwithstanding.

Streets provide benefits for everyone regardless of if they drive an auto or not.

Ciggies cause cancer, of that there is no argument.

Seems like dumb logic.

However, if health insurance companies begin to refuse coverage to smokers, you would be fine with that, right? Same with fat bastards who eat crap and don't get any exercise.



I do believe the US already has a history of regulating cancer causing products and chemicals. By reducing the nicotine level the desire to smoke tobacco will be reduced, not banned.

---

You conveniently left out the skiing example, which proves my overall point. Everyone does something that others would consider harmful, or costs them money, in some way. You were a ski patroller, how many busted knees did you cart down the hill that society collectively paid to reconstruct? Completely frivolous spending on an injury due to a complete leisure activity. You can extend the logic to basically anything that might result in negative health effects or injury, which I hate to break it to you, is literally everything.

The US is already well down this path, so this is basically me yelling at clouds, but it is still a silly regulation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m2711c

bless your heart is a legitimate response to a well known troll.

---

Or in other words, you can't separate polyass from the rest of the forum. I've already had you and Bunion track me down, and I'm sure Bennymac will chime in shortly.

Bless your heart.