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.
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.
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)
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”?
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It’s not just nicotine though. Effects of MAO inhibition and a combination of minor alkaloids, β-carbolines, and acetaldehyde on nicotine self-administration…
We don’t know the full role Tobacco specific Nitrosamines and other alkaloids play, but it’s there.
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)
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”?
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.
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.
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.
“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.
At the cost of 50 years worth of current addicts smoking more.
If we doubled the nicotine per cigarette, d’ya figure they’d all smoke half as many?
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.
So this effect only works in one direction?
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.
Or they’ll adjust.
Smoking more IS the adjustment. Take some nicotine away, they’ll crave more nicotine.
Equal to more tax money. Sadly…