Posted on 01/17/2025 2:05:10 PM PST by nickcarraway
A new rule by the FDA could change smoking as we know it.
No drug is quite like nicotine. When it hits your bloodstream, you’re sent on a ride of double euphoria: an immediate jolt of adrenaline, like a strong cup of coffee injected directly into your brain, along with the calming effect of a beer. Nicotine is what gets people hooked on cigarettes, despite their health risks and putrid smell. It is, in essence, what cigarette companies are selling, and what they’ve always been selling. Without nicotine, a cigarette is just smoldering leaves wrapped in some fancy paper.
But if the Biden administration gets its way, that’s essentially all cigarettes will be. 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.
The idea behind the proposal is to make cigarettes nonaddictive. One study found that some young people begin feeling the symptoms of nicotine addiction within a matter of days after starting to smoke. In 2022, roughly half of adult smokers tried to quit, but fewer than 10 percent were ultimately successful.
For that reason, the rule could permanently change smoking in America. The FDA insists that the proposal isn’t a ban per se. But in the rule’s intended effect, ban may indeed be an apt term. The FDA estimates that nearly 13 million people—more than 40 percent of current adult smokers—would quit smoking within one year of the rule taking effect. After all, why inhale
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
The percentage of smokers in the U.S. was small, under 10% before World War I. The military gave cigarettes to soldiers, and it was in the ration kit until 1975.
Then in the 1920's cigarettes were promoted as an act of feminism.
ping for later
It would only make people smoke more, buy more cigarettes, and thus pay much more in taxes.
I guess Government thinks that’s pretty clever...
California makes more profit of tobacco than Altria, the largest tobacco company. All with no overhead. Well, I guess there is some overhead, with the program to tax & collect.
Maybe the single dumbest thing a person can do.....inhale smoke into the lungs.
Time to plant our own tobacco plants.
It’ll just result in people smoking more to try and get the same amount of nicotine.
Resulting in more tax revenue.
Hopefully, President Trump will see this and get rid of it.
America’s central planning agencies hard at work at social engineering, for your own good, of course.
I just quit smoking again in January. I started again last August with Marlboro menthol lights. Not getting a good hit, after a few months I escalated to the full dose of Marlboro menthols. Like heroin, you need more and more nicotine to be satisfied. Fortunately for me, if I put on a patch, I can stop on a dime. They work very well for me. As for the FDA regulation limiting nicotine, a black market will develop.
I inherited some of my grandparent’s things. My grandmother was pretty hard core about documenting things. They moved to Eastern Wyoming to homestead after WWI. My grandfather was a soldier (purple heart) in the War. They ended up abandoning the claim after she became pregnant with my father and needed family support. In their records she dutifully noted that they purchased tobacco quite regularly. I assume it was because he was a smoker from WWI rations. I don’t think he smoked when I came along. They were quite frugal so she probably got him to quit along the way somewhere.
On the other hand, this:
The FDA insists that the proposal isn’t a ban per se.
is petty tyranny. Bureaucrats who do this sort of thing, and the politicians who enable it, are not representing my interests. They're acting counter to what I think government should be doing.
Petty tyrants are worse than smokers ...
Legal as long as you don’t grow more than a tenth of an acre, and don’t sell what you grow.
I say let people choose. There is plenty of harmful stuff in our society as evidenced by all the obese people.
Provide education and the smarter ones will choose healthier lifestyles ... or they won’t.
If I were going to smoke dried plant matter it would not be tobacco and not cloves either.
probably would get it from one of my local growers too.
Also ...
California makes more profit of tobacco gasoline than Altria Exxon-Mobil, the largest tobacco oil company. All with no overhead.
Buncha damn leeches ...
I quit smoking 48 years ago.
My wife quit a year ago.
My personal feeling is if you want to smoke
smoke what ever you want.
Government regulation NEVER works.
I point to alcohol, hard drugs, et. al.
as examples.
People like their drugs, you won’t stop it.
The best thing to do is teach our kids to recognize when
something is bad for them, stop doing it.
If they don’t then they will die.
It is called “Natural Selection”
Normal for life on this Earth.
More smoke probably means more lung cancer.
I enjoy telling stories about one of my grandmothers.
She smoked one cigarette a day every day after dinner.
She had no major health issues her entire life.
She lived to be 106.
Maybe if she had stopped smoking she could have made it to 107.
Lol.
Okay, so little cigars, vaping, and rolled pipe tobacco will take over. Stupid.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.