Nicotine in cigarettes, should government control it?

[john5746]

Nicotine Levels

 

Basically, nicotine levels have been rising over the years, especially those popular to young people. This makes them more addictive. I placed this in politics to ask the question - should the government do anything about it?

[Sisyphus]

What would they do? The government should make sure they tell the truth about what's in them (which otherwise the tobacco companies certainly wouldn't), but otherwise, it's nobody's business but the people who smoke them. Nobody ever went on a nicotine-induced murdering spree, so it's only harming the consumer, who can make an informed decision.

[Pangloss]

This is an interesting report that came out last week and I'd been meaning to start a thread on it myself, so thanks. The main thrust of the story (which the article linked above covers pretty well) is that the tobacco companies seem to be spiking nicotine levels in certain brands (some interestingly more than others). One of the more interesting aspects of this is how we know it to be the case -- because we have previous records of nicotine levels in the same brands from previous studies and litigation. So we know the levels are going up, and the accusation seems to be that they want to protect their existing customer base (even as they sponsor advertising telling us that it's good to quit smoking).

 

It's a particularly twisted and sinister scenario, even by tobacco company standards, isn't it?

 

Of course the government, and by extension the voting public, has put itself in a real bind here, because of "the Settlement", which has been a complete joke in some ways. This seems to be a nice book-end to the recently-discussed issue of how settlement proceeds are spent (with some states ignoring anti-smoking efforts and throwing it right into the general fund), and one can't help but see this as a double whammy for smokers hoping to find new help to quit.

[mike90]

Wow that's kind of disturbing actually. upping the level of nicotene to keep people hooked. But then again its tobacco companies. Wouldn't be too surprising

[Sisyphus]

How about just a "nicotine content" label on cigarettes? That way they can't do anything sneaky (at least with nicotine!).

[Aardvark]

How about just a "nicotine content" label on cigarettes? That way they can't do anything sneaky (at least with nicotine!).

 

Pretty much everywhere does that. Except the USA apparently.

 

Would anyone characterise the manipulation of nicotine in cigarettes as being any different from the manipulation of caffeine levels in coffee?

[mike90]

I don't know does caffeine give you cancer?

[ParanoiA]

No, the government should not control it, in my opinion. But I'm curious why there hasn't been a competing brand that advertises less nicotine as a selling point? Oh, that's right...no advertising allowed for cigarettes.

 

I guess there's very little advantage to competing on that level when there's no way to get the message out to the smokers. I wonder if the anti-smoking zealots thought of that one.

[ecoli]

What would they do? The government should make sure they tell the truth about what's in them (which otherwise the tobacco companies certainly wouldn't), but otherwise, it's nobody's business but the people who smoke them. Nobody ever went on a nicotine-induced murdering spree, so it's only harming the consumer, who can make an informed decision.

 

idk... does nicotine level effect anybody in terms of second hand smoke?

[mike90]

I don't think advertising less nicotene in a cigarette would be very effective if they could advertise it. Once your conditioned to a certain level of nicotene you find less unsatisfying. If you give someone who smokes regular cigarettes a pack of ultralights they will sit there and chain smoke, complaining that it feels like they're " not getting anything but air" when they take a drag.

[CPL.Luke]

its also worthy of note that a higher nicotine level in cigarettes makes them more addictive when used for the first time. So a random kid who takes one puff is more likely to want more than if he took a puff for the first time off of an older cigarrette brand.

[Aardvark]

I don't know does caffeine give you cancer?

 

Caffeine is an addictive drug. Its levels are manipulated in the same way as nicotine levels are manipulated. Presumably to get people 'hooked' on the product.

 

In what way would the relatively smaller health consequences of that drug alter the principle here. An addicitive substance is added to get people to consume more product. Caffeine is added to Cola drinks, they might not cause cancer, but they do contribute to obesity and diabetes.

 

Perhaps the Coca Cola corporation should be investigated for the same charges that cigarette companies have faced.

 

Whats the difference?

[bascule]

Basically, nicotine levels have been rising over the years, especially those popular to young people. This makes them more addictive. I placed this in politics to ask the question - should the government do anything about it?

 

Well, guess I'll break my self-imposed hiatus on posting here to opine...

 

The real problem with cigarettes, and making them more addictive, is that the manufacturing process introduces known, radioactive toxins.

 

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tobacco_smoking

 

Where the government should definitely step in is in terms of regulating toxins which are exclusively the result of the manufacturing process, including radionucletides and nitrosamine which results from direct-fire curing.

 

I mailed a letter, and a large packet of information supporting it, to my senator, asking him to introduce legislation which would allow the EPA to regulate radionucletides in tobacco. I never received a response. That was somewhat saddening.

[ecoli]

I mailed a letter' date=' and a large packet of information supporting it, to my senator, asking him to introduce legislation which would allow the EPA to regulate radionucletides in tobacco. I never received a response. That was somewhat saddening.[/quote']

 

don't give up Bascule, I like what you say on this subject. Perhaps you should form some sort of organization/coillition so your words would carry more weight? Idk...

[mike90]

I see what you mean after thinking about it Aardvark. Seems to me like maybe the government needs to put stronger regulations on all addictive substances, as the average consumer simply does not have enough awareness on the subject to protect themselves

[ecoli]

I see what you mean after thinking about it Aardvark. Seems to me like maybe the government needs to put stronger regulations on all addictive substances, as the average consumer simply does not have enough awareness on the subject to protect themselves

 

Why is the government's responsibility to protect people from their own ignorance?

 

It's not like the gov't is trying to hide the fact that cigarettes are going to kill you. In fact, despite of the great tax incentive the gov't get from cigarette companies, they are actually taking the opposite approach.

 

I think the gov't doing enough in terms of regulation, and information about the dangers of smoking are readily avaible. There's simply no excuse anymore.

[Aardvark]

Why is the government's responsibility to protect people from their own ignorance?

 

Because freedom implies choice. People can only make valid choices if they have the relevant information.

 

It's not the governments responsibility to stop people choosing to smoke, but i think it does have a responsibility to ensure that the public is given the relevant information. If products contain addictive compounds then it seems right that consumers know that so they are able to make informed choices rather that becoming inadvertantly addicted.

[mike90]

Thats an attitude that assumes people are always capable of acting in their own best interests. If that was the case why would we even have laws? Why are there laws requiring you wear a helmet when you drive a motorcycle? This is common sense and if you choose not to do so your only endangering yourself, yet there is a law there in place forcibly regulating people's behavior because some are too careless or unintelligent to make the safest choice themselves.

 

Also it would seem laws against drunk drivers are there to protect both other motorists and the drunk driver himself from harm.

 

On another note there are warnings on almost every consumer product you buy these days. Dont spill the coffee on yourself, its hot. Don't let your children play with plastic packaging materials as they may suffocate, don't sit there in an enclosed space and breathe in chemical fumes, dont take 30 aspirin because you have a migraine,dont operate unshielded electronic equipment while immerses in water =P

 

Most of these are common sense, and some would argue to let natural selection take its course. as George Carlin said once, the kid who eats too many marbles doesn't grow up to have his own kids. But that is not how society works. There will always be an active system in place to protect people against there own stupidity, or lack of information. At the least i would think they need to make it common knowledge that companies are upping levels of addictive substances in products, as i doubt the average consumer is aware of this.

 

wether you like it or not its long been a built in feature of society to protect people from being idiotic when they wont protect themselves, at least in America

[ecoli]

You're right, Aardvark and mike90, but there has to be some point were the individual must take responsibility for their own actions and education.

 

 

For example, if my father dies from lung cancer, should I be able to sue to government for not providing him with enough information about the dangers of smoking? (he doesn't actually smoke, just an example).

 

Agreed, the gov't. does have some responsibility to take care of it's citizens, but where does it end? I feel that this is a problem in many different areas of our society and that we may suffer from it later on because people are being taught to not be responsible for their own actions, but to look to someone else to pin it on.

[Aardvark]

Thats an attitude that assumes people are always capable of acting in their own best interests. If that was the case why would we even have laws? Why are there laws requiring you wear a helmet when you drive a motorcycle? This is common sense and if you choose not to do so your only endangering yourself, yet there is a law there in place forcibly regulating people's behavior because some are too careless or unintelligent to make the safest choice themselves.

 

In Florida the law requiring helmets has been rescinded. Helmetless bikers are now known as organ donors.

 

Also it would seem laws against drunk drivers are there to protect both other motorists and the drunk driver himself from harm.

 

Personally i that people should be able to do what they want as long as it does not harm anyone else. Which means laws against drunk driving are quite reasonable.

 

On another note there are warnings on almost every consumer product you buy these days. Dont spill the coffee on yourself, its hot. Don't let your children play with plastic packaging materials as they may suffocate, don't sit there in an enclosed space and breathe in chemical fumes, dont take 30 aspirin because you have a migraine,dont operate unshielded electronic equipment while immerses in water =P

 

Fair point. I don't want to live in a nanny state where the government tries to wrap everyone in cotton wool and no one takes responsibility for their actions. It does seem like people can do anything stupid and then blame anyone but themselves and make mony from it.

 

What i do want is for people to be given relevant information, for instance, if a product contains an addictive substance. Once people know that they can make their own choices and take responsibility for their own actions.

 

After all, isn't being an adult about taking responsibilty for your own actions? In my opinion Western society is becoming infantalised, with people taking less and less responsibility for their own lives and decisions. (rant, rant;))

[Aardvark]

For example' date=' if my father dies from lung cancer, should I be able to sue to government for not providing him with enough information about the dangers of smoking? (he doesn't actually smoke, just an example).[/quote']

 

In my opinion, no. Your Father should only be able to sue if the government or the cigarette company deliberately witheld information. If the cigarette company was secretly manipulating nicotine levels and suppressing information about the dangers then it would be cupable. Not otherwise.

[ecoli]

I agree... but, my point is, how much responsibility does the government have and how much information should they be required to release?

[Aardvark]

The government should have a responsibility to ensure that no company deliberately misleads people about its products and that any addictive substances should be clearly labelled.

 

Basically the government is there to ensure businesses are honest. That should be enough surely?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The information is already released, it's that nobody cares.

[Aardvark]

The information is already released, it's that nobody cares.

 

Apparently in the USA the nicotine levels are not printed on cigarette packets. For the information to be freely available it should be on the packet, just like the ingredient list on a packet of food.