Biden Administration Targets Removal of Most Nicotine From Cigarettes

#53
#53
kiddiedoc said:
FYI: nicotine has not been linked to cancer. Addictive? Yes, very.

I can ride a bike, but what would I know?
Click to expand...

Maybe my memory is lacking, but it seems we all have the cancer gene. I'ts just a matter of it going active. Also, I seem to recall that cancer can be caused by repeated overexposure to many things. But, it's been a long time since I spent any measureable time reading on that. All i know is one summer my dad has a clean check-up on everything. The next October he is eat up with terminal prostate cancer that spread everywhere. Never had tobacco of any kind in his body. Very, very light drinker. He and mom would have a glass of wine so occasionally a bottle would go bad before it'd go empty. Heck, he never even uttered on curse word in his entire life. And ate very healthy. Cancer has no boundaries.
 
#56
#56
Vol423 said:
Are you trying to say there is no Fentanyl problem? Like a lot of other things, it's illegal. Nevertheless it is a MAJOR problem because the liberals running this country don't enforce laws.
Click to expand...
"Major problem?" How about the now #1 cause of death for those under 50 in the U.S.

Let that sink in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol, Ttucke11, marcusluvsvols and 1 other person
#57
#57
Another statistic:

There are now more annual deaths due to Fentanyl overdose than there have been TOTAL CV19 deaths in over two years in the under-50 demographic.

70x more fentanyl deaths/year than the total number of children <18 that have died with/from CV19.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol, InVOLuntary and tbwhhs
#58
#58
kiddiedoc said:
"Major problem?" How about the now #1 cause of death for those under 50 in the U.S.

Let that sink in.
Click to expand...
Yes. I had heard that stat just the other day. I didn't remember the exact context of the stat, so I didn't want to post incorrect info.
 
#59
#59
GVF said:
Maybe my memory is lacking, but it seems we all have the cancer gene. I'ts just a matter of it going active. Also, I seem to recall that cancer can be caused by repeated overexposure to many things. But, it's been a long time since I spent any measureable time reading on that. All i know is one summer my dad has a clean check-up on everything. The next October he is eat up with terminal prostate cancer that spread everywhere. Never had tobacco of any kind in his body. Very, very light drinker. He and mom would have a glass of wine so occasionally a bottle would go bad before it'd go empty. Heck, he never even uttered on curse word in his entire life. And ate very healthy. Cancer has no boundaries.
Click to expand...
Sorry about your dad man. Cancer Sucks!!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: landscapingvol
#60
#60
lawgator1 said:
Shame on them, trying to reduce cancer. Truly evil, I tell you.
Click to expand...
Actually, it's matters like this where the 1984 analogies are somewhat applicable to Democrats.

While the intentions might be good, it is not the role of the United States government to serve as a "nanny" for people who live unhealthy life styles. In this country, an adult has the right to consume carcinogens, and destroy their liver if it makes them happy.

The government should do nothing more than make information concerning the addictive nature of nicotine available to the public... but then mind their own business.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PEPPERJAX, 0nelilreb and McDad
#62
#62
Vol423 said:
Are you trying to say there is no Fentanyl problem? Like a lot of other things, it's illegal. Nevertheless it is a MAJOR problem because the liberals running this country don't enforce laws.
Click to expand...
No, my words made no such insinuation. Project much? Reactionary reach
 
#63
#63
DancingOutlaw said:
Smoking is down 40% in the last 15 years. Do you think that's because so many people have wised up, or so many smoking boomers have shuffled off the coil? The current smoking rate among young people is 7%. Smoking is a health crisis for the boomers, I don't see how reducing nicotine is going to save any lifelong smokers at this point. Meanwhile we are closing in on 100k overdose deaths a year, primarily among very young people. Compared to how many millions of years of life are lost to that versus Uncle Frank dying of emphysema at 78 it's a much more pressing problem for our country.
Click to expand...
Young people are now addicted to vaping, which delivers a much higher dose of nicotine, getting them even more addicted. But at least it isn't "smoke" I guess. I could even make the argument that there are more ODs now partly because the nicotine buzz is so much more intense than a cigarette, could be considered "gateway"
 
#65
#65
BowlBrother85 said:
Actually, it's matters like this where the 1984 analogies are somewhat applicable to Democrats.

While the intentions might be good, it is not the role of the United States government to serve as a "nanny" for people who live unhealthy life styles. In this country, an adult has the right to consume carcinogens, and destroy their liver if it makes them happy.

The government should do nothing more than make information concerning the addictive nature of nicotine available to the public... but then mind their own business.
Click to expand...
It's not just that. They are regulating the thing that doesn't cause cancer, but reducing the thing that makes you addictive, so you will consume more of them to get your fix and inhale more of the cancer causing chemicals. This policy has stupid written all over it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol, kiddiedoc, PEPPERJAX and 2 others
#66
#66
volfanhill said:
It's not just that. They are regulating the thing that doesn't cause cancer, but reducing the thing that makes you addictive, so you will consume more of them to get your fix and inhale more of the cancer causing chemicals. This policy has stupid written all over it.
Click to expand...

Might be a “climate change” agenda thing.
 
#67
#67
I know, but the vast majority of weed smokers don't use them. Most people smoke for a little buzz, those things make you melt into your couch for 5 hours.
 
#68
#68
volfanhill said:
It's not just that. They are regulating the thing that doesn't cause cancer, but reducing the thing that makes you addictive, so you will consume more of them to get your fix and inhale more of the cancer causing chemicals. This policy has stupid written all over it.
Click to expand...
I suppose so for current smokers, but most of them are so far gone now it wouldn't matter (my father falls into this category). I think the goal is for a person who has never smoked a cigarette, when they get around to trying it, it just tastes nasty and doesn't do anything for them, and they have no desire to try it again.
 
#69
#69
volfanhill said:
It's not just that. They are regulating the thing that doesn't cause cancer, but reducing the thing that makes you addictive, so you will consume more of them to get your fix and inhale more of the cancer causing chemicals. This policy has stupid written all over it.
Click to expand...
Excellent point.
 
#71
#71
BowlBrother85 said:
Actually, it's matters like this where the 1984 analogies are somewhat applicable to Democrats.

While the intentions might be good, it is not the role of the United States government to serve as a "nanny" for people who live unhealthy life styles. In this country, an adult has the right to consume carcinogens, and destroy their liver if it makes them happy.

The government should do nothing more than make information concerning the addictive nature of nicotine available to the public... but then mind their own business.
Click to expand...

Holy crap .. are you ok ?
 
#72
#72
K-town Vol Fan said:
I suppose so for current smokers, but most of them are so far gone now it wouldn't matter (my father falls into this category). I think the goal is for a person who has never smoked a cigarette, when they get around to trying it, it just tastes nasty and doesn't do anything for them, and they have no desire to try it again.
Click to expand...

You do know that most of the burn and thing that doesn’t taste good is the actual Nicotine itself right ? Sooooo lowering the amount of the thing that tastes bad and burns , is going to help that ? I’ve never seen anyone quit because of government rebranding .. peer pressure to start smoking , and to stop are the number one reasons .
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs
#73
#73
bidenphotos.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#74
#74
0nelilreb said:
You do know that most of the burn and thing that doesn’t taste good is the actual Nicotine itself right ? Sooooo lowering the amount of the thing that tastes bad and burns , is going to help that ? I’ve never seen anyone quit because of government rebranding .. peer pressure to start smoking , and to stop are the number one reasons .
Click to expand...
Are you saying even without a nicotine buzz, people will still be addicted to the taste of burnt paper and tobacco?
 
#75
#75
K-town Vol Fan said:
Are you saying even without a nicotine buzz, people will still be addicted to the taste of burnt paper and tobacco?
Click to expand...

I’m saying lowering the nicotine won’t make new smokers smoke less if it’s the nicotine they are after and most don’t start because of nicotine but peer pressure . See whiskey or beer . Have you every met anyone that starting drinking because of the alcohol content or drank less because of it ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top