Health experts say axing plan to block sales of tobacco products to next generation will cost thousands of lives

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 2 years ago (3 children)

They aren't removing all the nicotine. They were just cutting down how much each cigarette has. So for a smoker to get their nicotine fix, they'd have to smoke three times as many cigarettes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    It's still tobacco at the end of the day, you can't remove all of the nicotine because it occurs naturally. It occurs in many other plants too, but in levels which doesn't inspire any motivation to remove it. In the same way I think delineating between elimination and reduction of nicotine is a moot point. Smoking is not pleasant, and every smoker has overcome this unpleasantness to become nicotine addicts. There is no reason other than nicotine why it continues to propagate in all countries and cultures today. And with nicotine-reduced cigarettes, smokers must simultaneously engage with that unpleasantness more, and still come to terms with diminished returns vs. the nicotine they previously ingested from 1 cigarette.

    As for the amount the nicotine can be reduced by, I've seen a wide range of estimates from 50% to 90+%. I don't think we'll ever really know what's reasonable and scalable without any such product actually on the market.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    If the idea is reducing it to the point where smokers don't think it's worth it to smoke anymore, then just ban them. Otherwise you absolutely will have people who will smoke 3-4x more to get their original fix. Or they'll take deeper draws and hold it longer like people did when lights were introduced (there were studies on this)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Without taking away from your point, I'll point out that you're comparing hypothetical isolated cases of pointless and fruitless self-harm to a supposed reduction in tobacco harm generally, which is one of the leading causes of premature death globally, and is also fully preventable (while the actions of irrational persons is not generally preventable). I think the side you land on has more to do with one's politics generally than the actual issue. Does "do no harm" take priority if the consequence is "generally more death"?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    No I literally think they should ban them instead of playing stupid games like taking most of the nicotine out and hoping people make the healthier decision vs the more destructive one of smoking more.

    Whether nicotine reduction would even lead to a net reduction in harm is the actual hypothetical here, and there are reasons to believe it wouldn't, which is all I'm pointing out. It just sounds like a shitty policy, regardless of ideology.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    What are those reasons? It sounds like you're trying to say that tobacco as a cultivated plant for smoking propagating across the world over the past few centuries is because it was trendy.

    Without getting into my personal involvement and anecdotes, 'introduce RNT products and hope for the best' is far from an accurate characterisation of NZ Labour's Smokefree 2025 Action Plan.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    I'm not arguing nicotine isn't addictive. It's the whole basis of why there's good reason to believe people woule just smoke more to get their fix, and all the harm that comes with the added tar consumption that would involve.

    It also wouldn't be the first time a political party proposed a poorly thought out policy that sounds good on paper but doesn't help in practice. If there is some accompanying successful medical study that motivated such a policy then I can be convinced otherwise, but until then let's stop pretending these doubts are not obvious and reasonable.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    "Their fix" is based on whatever dosage they're already used to. There's not some fixed upper bound that everyone achieves after their first cigarette.

    Making cigarettes less addictive would make new addicts less addicted.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    At the cost of 50 years worth of current addicts smoking more.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    If we doubled the nicotine per cigarette, d'ya figure they'd all smoke half as many?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    I doubt it. I think for most smokers, one cigarette does them for a while. I don't see anyone stopping at half a cigarette, so I'd guess it would only get smokers used to taking more nicotine in at a time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    So this effect only works in one direction?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Like I said. Mainly because if someone lights up, they'll smoke the whole cigarette. Not half. But if they didn't get enough nicotine from one, instead of not smoking again for a couple hours, they may smoke again after just 45 minutes or so. Or even start chain smoking.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Smoking more IS the adjustment. Take some nicotine away, they'll crave more nicotine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Or they'll adjust to how much is in what they're used to smoking. Their bodies will adjust. Because cravings are driven by exposure.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    And they'll smoke more in order to get the exposure they're used to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    A value immune to change in exactly one direction, apparently.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You don't really know how an addiction works, do you? Nevermind that being a question for you to answer. I suppose I already know you don't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Do you know how quitting an addiction works? Ideally... you take less.

    That's not a paradox or a gotcha. It's the only way people break the cycle. You understand that cycle can be deepened. You seem absolutely confident there's no other direction.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago

    You seem to think the people having low nicotine cigarettes forced on them want to quit smoking.

    And no. I'm not saying there is no other direction. Upping the age every year would work. Upping the prices would work, but is a ln asshole move for a government to make, banning cigarettes would work. Lowering nicotine in cigarettes is what wouldn't work. It's straight up something that would make the smoking related health issues of an entire country worse instead of better.

  • source
  • parent