9 ms·
FDA announces comprehensive plan for tobacco and nicotine regulation
- Clubber 9y agoOh, you know, maybe take a whack at regulating health care costs would be great.
- notyourwork 9y agoIs this something that is in scope for FDA?
- jws 9y agoWe'll know after the tobacco companies' first lawsuit gets to the Supreme Court.
- bdcravens 9y agoParent comment was referring to off-topic comment about regulating prices, not the article.
- glibgil 9y agoYeah, it's food and drug. If you put it in your mouth, it's FDA
- ceejayoz 9y agoThey can't regulate drug prices much more than they can regulate food prices.
- Consultant32452 9y agoNot directly, but they decide the hurdles someone has to jump through in order to get a drug. They control whether it's out on the shelf or behind the counter. They control whether a prescription is required. They control whether generics are approved, etc.
- notyourwork 9y agoBy that logic why is the DEA not setting the price of drugs i get from my dealer?
- glibgil 9y agoDon't they in effect?
- digitalzombie 9y ago> Oh, you know, maybe take a whack at regulating health care costs would be great. I don't think FDA regulate healthcare cost... they regulate stuff for safety. edit: I'm current at FDA, my last day, I can find somebody to answer this debate I guess... but preeeeetty sure we don't do this.
- theseatoms 9y agoThen they should be able to block single-payer. :)
- jrowley 9y agoIf anything, the FDA would advocate for single-payer since it increase quality of care.
- leesalminen 9y agoIt does? For everyone? How so? Not being sarcastic, looking for folks thoughts.
- microcolonel 9y agoI don't think the single payer system here will treat me unless I am dying. I've waited four months to be scheduled for a dermatologist, each time it's a new "clerical error" or "honest mistake". First they "forgot to fax the file", then the dermatologist "forgot to process the fax", then they "forgot to schedule your appointment", surely they'll "get you in for Tuesday next week, if that's alright with you" :- \
- leesalminen 9y agoWhat country are you in? This isn't common for me in the US.
- 9y ago
- rufusroflpunch 9y agoWith tobacco use already on a rapid decline, here comes to FDA, late to the party. But they're going to claim credit for it later, rest assured.
- jacquesm 9y agoDepending on the demographic it may not be in decline at all.
- henryw 9y agoIt seems like a lot of my younger friends are using a "juul", which has a ton of nicotine in it. I'm kind of scared for them.
- opportune 9y agoNicotine by itself is not dangerous. There's a VERY common misconception that nicotine itself is carcinogenic, while there is actually insufficient evidence for that. It's the tobacco, tar, and carbon monoxide that are responsible for most of the adverse effects of nicotine products. The only concern with vapes like the juul is that while their base components are safe to vape, sometimes they use flavors which are not very well studied (and which, when heated, may degrade into carcinogenic chemicals).
- JauntTrooper 9y agoWhile nicotine itself may not be a carcinogen, there's evidence it encourages the growth/spread of cancer and and increases the likelihood of recurrence. It might be inhibiting antitumor immune responses. [0] [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4553893/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4553893/
- camiller 9y agoAlso, I believe, with vapes that some carcinogenic compounds are created when the liquid is vaporized. That is to say some small part of it burns on contact with the heating element in the vaporizer and some of those combustion byproducts are cancer causing.
- notadoc 9y agoWhy not let the free market decide how much nicotine to put into products?
- IgorPartola 9y agoAnd how much lead is OK in drinking water?
- snarfy 9y agoThe water utility is anything but a free market. It's not a very good analogy.
- TeMPOraL 9y agoIt isn't a free market for a reason.
- MBCook 9y agoGiven how addictive nicotine is does the free market even work? Isn't the pressure the addicts feel to get more nicotine a HUGE external force on the market that may distort it until it doesn't work? After all cigarettes didn't become healthier once the dangers were know (long ago). The government had to step in. To say nothing of tobacco companies acting like a cartel.
- Consultant32452 9y agoThe most deadly addictive substance on Earth is sugar, it kills far more than nicotine could ever hope to. But for some reason the FDA doesn't care to restrict everyone's sugar intake. As far as I'm concerned all we needed was appropriate tort reform which would allow people who get cancer to sue tobacco companies for damages (before the warnings).
- greenshackle2 9y agoNicotine is not super highly addictive, as far as drugs go. Tobacco smoke is. It has MAOIs (addictive) and possibly other drugs.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- johnward 9y agoIs smoking more to get the same buzz considered a win?
- malchow 9y agoI believe the technical term is EBITDA-accretive.
- flatearthisflat 9y agoclowns! http://audiobible.life http://audiobible.life плоская земля! Płaskie Ziemie! Yassı Toprak! 평지! 平地球! フラットアース! زمین تخت !شقة الأرض! Flache Erde! Platte Aarde! Pământ plat! Tierra Plana! Terre Plate! Flat Earth! Do the research! Don't be a clown! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqrN8iOMg5k&list=PL7X63Sm3kODPV43FyewOSadSnZwZGZQHU&index=2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqrN8iOMg5k&list=PL7X63Sm3kO...
- slaveofallah93 9y agoI would not consider it to be one. Nicotine is not the most harmful part of tobacco use, the smoke is. Nicotine is a helpful drug that enhances focus and working memory. Forcing tobacco to be sold with lower nicotine content seems to be throwing out the baby, and keeping the bathwater. Completely the opposite of what is good.
- phil248 9y agoIt seems like targeting the cancer-causing agents in tobacco would be more important than targeting nicotine. With less nicotine, some smokers will inevitably smoke more, thereby consuming more cancer-causing chemicals than before this move by the FDA.
- Justin_K 9y agoNicotine on its own is a highly addictive substance which provides no health benefits. It should be targeted just as well.
- DiffEq 9y agoNicotine has several health and mental benefits and is not at all addictive if taken apart from cigarettes. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-nicotine-all-bad/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-nicotine-all-b...
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- halestock 9y agoEr, nicotine itself is absolutely addictive, regardless of the delivery mechanism. From the article you linked: "Scientists don't doubt nicotine is addictive".
- srslack 9y agoScientists also don't doubt that caffeine is "addictive." Anything can be "addictive." Let's put it this way: are there any scientific studies with results indicating that nicotine, by itself, has significantly stronger self reinforcing properties in comparison to caffeine. The answer is no: there are none. Quite the opposite. Nicotine has pretty weak self reinforcing properties for all the hype. The magic is in tobacco smoke and various other drug interactions that result in the strong self reinforcing properties of tobacco smoke. So, when many people bring up nicotine's addictive properties they're really talking about tobacco smoke. There's also the hand-mouth habit, but I digress.
- cinquemb 9y agoGotta keep the live stock healthy long enough to maximize future rent extraction potential.
- Individualist 9y agoIgnoring the politics as it distracts from the article. It looks like the FDA is going.to regulate new tobacco products such as e cigarette's nicotine levels down to non addictive levels. While opening public dialogue as to whether the same should apply to cigarettes.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- wu-ikkyu 9y agoWhy should it not apply to cigarettes as well?
- erik-g 9y agoFrom the announcement: "Importantly, the anticipated new enforcement policy will not affect any current requirements for cigarettes and smokeless tobacco, only the newly-regulated tobacco products such as cigars and e-cigarettes."
- joveian 9y ago"A key piece of the FDA’s approach is demonstrating a greater awareness that nicotine – while highly addictive – is delivered through products that represent a continuum of risk and is most harmful when delivered through smoke particles in combustible cigarettes." "Envisioning a world where cigarettes would no longer create or sustain addiction, and where adults who still need or want nicotine could get it from alternative and less harmful sources, needs to be the cornerstone of our efforts – and we believe it’s vital that we pursue this common ground.” This seems like exactly the right approach to me and it is super exciting to see the FDA saying this stuff. I hope they stick with it.
- jasonkostempski 9y agoI smoked a lot for about 15 years. Every time I tried to quit it was cold-turkey and I don't remember ever feeling like I needed the nicotine, I just wanted to get away from whatever it was I was supposed to be doing, or what I was doing was so mindless I needed something to preoccupy myself (e.g. driving, walking, sitting around). I'm not sure nicotine is the problem for a lot of people. If it is, lowering it is just going to cause them to smoke more. I'm not sure what ultimately worked for me but I don't really think about it anymore and I can have a few while partying without getting sucked back in to the habit completely. NYS prices may have played a big role.
- bhandziuk 9y agoWhy have I read a few comments saying lowering nicotine would cause people to smoke more? I've not smoked before so I don't really get it.
- maxerickson 9y agoPeople are used to a given amount of nicotine. If each unit of tobacco product has less nicotine, they will consume more units to achieve the amount of nicotine they are used to.
- Clubber 9y agoThink of it in terms of lowering the oxygen levels in a sealed room. You body will gasp for air in a survival reaction.
- surement 9y agoNicotine is pleasant, it's a nootropic. If there's less in your chosen method of absorption, you will try to compensate.
- Mz 9y agoIt is like saying that if people need X amount of calories and you decide to put them on a diet by just giving them smaller portions, they will simply eat more portions to hit the calorie level they need. If they smoke for the nicotine, they will smoke until they get the amount they crave. If they smoke because they like something else about it, then they won't. But most people smoke for the nicotine, or they would have some other habit instead.
- ecommerceguy 9y agoI think alot of underage buyers use eBay for vapes. Even though the products are on the "prohibited" list, it's got to be one of ebays biggest categories.
- erik-g 9y agoThere are a lot of comments about smoking more to make up for reduced nicotine levels, but this is a little bit misguided. Keep in mind the time it takes to consume nicotine. If you have a 5-minute smoke break at work you can't hang out for 15 minutes to smoke 3 because each cigarette is less potent. I'm sure there's a better term for it, but smoking isn't a zero sum game, you don't always have the option of increasing the quantity to make up for reduced concentration, if for no other reason than time and financial constraints.
- X86BSD 9y agoCigarettes have NO medicinal value. Why are they not schedule one right up their with marijuana which research has indicated has many many medicinal uses?