Nicotine levels up 10%-20%

[jluetjen]

Nicotine levels in cigarettes up 10%-20% in the last few years. Anyone else surprised/shocked at the tabacco co's efforts to stay alive (by shortening their customer's lives).

Why are they still here???

[bryanthompson]

You need a, "I don't, but as long as it's legal, who am I to judge," option.

[lendaddy]

I quit almost two years ago, and I gotta say I'de like a smoke

Not gonna happen, but I'de really like a smoke.

Anyway, to each their own.

[jluetjen]

Originally posted by bryanthompson
You need a, "I don't, but as long as it's legal, who am I to judge," option.

Oh, that's negotiable. It's only a question of enough people getting fed up with the insurance and healthcare costs, not to mention the lost "slacker time" of smokers as they disappear for a butt. And then there are the tobacco farmer's subsidies...

Once enough people get fed-up with it, then it won't be legal anymore. Legal just means that a concensus of people didn't agree to make something illegal. As far as I know the constitution doesn't say anything about tobacco, but it does speak a lot about governing for the common good. Passing a law that would...
- 1) Increase the health of the population
- 2) Decrease healthcare costs
- 3) Cut government subsidies

What's not to like about it?

[bryanthompson]

I'm fed up with paying for high healthcare costs caused by fatties also... Let's ban fat people.

[scottmandue]

Originally posted by bryanthompson
I'm fed up with paying for high healthcare costs caused by fatties also... Let's ban fat people.

Yeah and what about those dangerous sports car owners! Lets ban all of them!

[jluetjen]

I hear you. But food is a requirement for life, and the food companies aren't necessarily manipulating the content to make you eat more of it. Pretty much everyone agrees good tasting food is a public good, even if some people abuse it.

Tobacco on the other hand isn't a necessity for life, and the tobacco companies apparently are manipulating it's contents to ensure that people can't quit even if they wanted to.

Besides, the existance of other social evils doesn't change the discussion about this one. If you want to start an obesity thread go ahead. This is a tobacco thread.

[jluetjen]

Originally posted by scottmandue
Yeah and what about those dangerous sports car owners! Lets ban all of them!

Yeah, but Porsche and other manufacturers do not design the car such that they can't be opened from the inside to let a driver out if they want to leave. But tobacco companies are essentially doing that.

[Moses]

I don't smoke. Never have. But I'll defend the right of anyone to smoke as long as I don't have to smell it. There are too damn many rules as it is.

Why are we so intent on restricting dangerous activity? Freedom is much more important than safety. Do we really want to develop a culture where risk taking is unacceptable? As long as people are willing to accept personal responsibility for their behavior, leave them alone.

[rammstein]

Originally posted by jluetjen
Yeah, but Porsche and other manufacturers do not design the car such that they can't be opened from the inside to let a driver out if they want to leave.

At least during the warranty period

[Porsche-O-Phile]

How 'bout everyone makes their own damn lifestyle choices and pays the premiums according to them. No free healthcare, none o' that stuff. Want to pork up on beef sandwiches every day? Go ahead, but guess who's paying for your quadruple-bypass? YOU. Want to smoke up? Freebase heroin? Live on Pez? Go ahead, but you're responsible for finding and paying for your own damn insurance.

[sammyg2]

I am so tired of people perpetuating urban myths when they have absolutely no accurate knowledge of the subject.
I've done a great deal of research on the subject to support a term paper I wrote in college.

MYTH: smoking tobacco increases medical costs and insurance costs.
BS. The US surgeon general's office has published many studies that prove the opposite. Smokers actually rack up lower lifetime health costs than non-smokers because they do not live as long.

MYTH: smoking puts a financial burden on society and the government. Again, BS. Smokers do not draw as much social security as non-smokers and they pay a great deal more taxes on their tobacco. Smoking is financially beneficial to society.

MYTH: second hand smoke is worse than first hand smoke.
BS. Again, the US surgeon general's office has paid for and published studies trying to prove that second hand smoke is worse. What they proved and quitely presented as to not draw much attention is that the opposite was true. Secondhand smoke was shown to be much less dangerous than first hand smoke. In fact, the clinical study that I cited in my term paper in 1999 indicted that they were unable to identify or provide direct evidence that second hand smoke was directly responsible for ANY deaths.
I'm not saying that second hand smoke is safe. I am saying that the stupidass health nazis made up most of their so-called evidence to scare people into supporting their cause and lots of sheep are buying into their propaganda.

Now, I could say that I don't care for something that others consume. Does that give me the right to ban it? Of course not.
We are all free to make personal choice. If we want to smoke, we can and will. If we don't, then we don't but DO NOT STICK YOUR NOSE IN MY BUSINESS and try to tell me how to live my life and I will extend you the same courtesy.
And please refrain from spreading manure. Check your facts.

PS, I'm sure some of you will try to post little quips that condradict my statements. They are all over the net, on every health nazi website there is. Lets try to stick to factual, unbiased, professional and accurate information, shall we? No extemist drivel, just real information.
I suggest the surgeon general's office as one, the library of congess might be another.
JAMA is very a good source as long as the information is clinical and not editorial in nature.

[Moses]

Jeff and Sammy hit the nail squarely on the head.

[scottmandue]

Sammy has some good points, and in reference to his post where did you (jluetjen) get your information that nicotine levels are up?

[dd74]

Subscribing - because I think this thread's gonna' be a good one.

BTW: ban breathing...

[jluetjen]

Originally posted by scottmandue
...where did you (jluetjen) get your information that nicotine levels are up?

My local news paper/web site.

[Jims5543]

Sammy is probably right, both my Aunt and Uncle died in their early 50's and my neighbor across the street died in his mid 50's from smoking, actually, lung cancer from smoking.

They saved the world 30 years of medical expenses.

And look at it this way, 30 years of them not using our gas either.

[dd74]

Well, it makes perfect sense that 93-percent of manufacturers would raise the level of nicotine, only so thay can hold onto the shrinking minority of smokers.

IMO it is definitely an issue swept under the rug by the govt. In many ways I agree with Moses, and as I have more of a libertarian mindset, I believe one should do what they want, and smoking, much to the fortuitousness of those in govt, the decreasing numbers of smokers and the fair amount of "don't" warnings, makes this a non-issue for many. It's sort of like slavery and reparation to me - this was a true issue 150 years ago, however now, the subject of slavery is not nearly as viable or important.

Smokers, by now, should know the implications of their habit, and should have either quit or making plans to do so. In the end, quitting/never supporting the habit, will kill the industry.

The tobacco companies, on the other hand, do not seem to have acted illegally. Yes, the tobacco companies' lobbying power allows them to be very influencial toward shunning off government oversight, but then many American companies have if not the same, similar arrangements.

[scottmandue]

As a sideline... do they still sell low nicotine cigarettes?

(for you young-ins back in the 70's and 80's they had such things)

[scottmandue]

I don't smoke cigarettes and I acknowledge that they ruin you health.

However, a quote from the article:

"The study tried to measure nicotine levels based on the way smokers actually use cigarettes, health officials said, in part by partially covering ventilation holes as they smoke and taking longer puffs. Traditional testing methods which don’t take real-life smoking habits into account, typically report lower nicotine contents, officials said.

Of the 179 cigarette brands tested in 2004 for the report, 93 percent fell into the highest range for nicotine. In 1998, 84 percent of 116 brands tested fell into the highest range. "

Now if they have changed the testing procedure (from one that typically shows lower levels) isn't it possible the nicotine level is the same as before?