New Cigarette Regulations

[K-Mac]

This whole situation is so ridiculous on so many levels. First, the hypocrisy...the government prosecutes and ruins successful businessmen and their businesses for anti-trust "violations", then it turns around and helps create monopolies. Second, it shows how government intervention into the market place creates favors, false power and pull. Finally, it gives us yet another brilliant example of why the government should not be involved in any business, at all, period.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090612/us_time/08599190425000

When Senator John McCain introduced FDA regulatory legislation in 1998, the company spent a reported $100 million successfully fighting it. But since then, Philip Morris has had a crucial realization. With 50% of the U.S. tobacco market already safely in the company's pocket - and more than 50% of 18- to 25-year-old smokers loyal to its top brand, Marlboro - restrictive legislation will effectively lock in its market dominance, preventing any competitors from taking a bite out of Philip Morris' very lucrative business. (See vintage cigarette propaganda.)

The company's main rival, R.J. Reynolds, manufacturer of Camel cigarettes, is still in dismay over Philip Morris' reversal from regulation opponent to champion, and the third largest cigarette manufacturer, Lorillard, has labeled the legislation the Marlboro Monopoly Act. Both argue that as the new restrictions cut off most remaining avenues available for advertising and ban marketing stunts like free-sample cigarette giveaways, the companies' ability to "communicate" (i.e., gain market share) with potential and existing smokers about their products will be blocked. In addition, the administrative costs of complying with FDA regulations favor large manufacturers over smaller ones.

But there's another key reason Philip Morris lobbied hard for FDA regulation, aligning itself with strange bedfellows like the Campaign for Smoke-Free Kids, the American Lung Association and longtime anti-smoking crusaders Senator Ted Kennedy and Representative Henry Waxman. "Philip Morris wants the public-health community to join them in finding the holy grail: the safe cigarette," says Gregory Connolly, a tobacco expert and professor at the Harvard School of Public Health. Simply put, figuring out how to produce a less harmful tobacco product and getting an FDA seal of approval could open up a whole new, potentially huge consumer market.

[Jake_Ellison]

There's no such thing as a safe cigarette. The pleasure of smoking comes from the harmful substances in tobacco, so a safer cigarette would not be a cigarette at all: it would just be an excuse to ban smoking, and replace it with something completely different, hoping that smokers will just give up.

But that won't happen, especially young people will just turn to the black market, more gangs will spring up, and more kids will end up making the jump to crack and heroin, once involved in that lifestyle.

[D'kian]

There's no such thing as a safe cigarette. The pleasure of smoking comes from the harmful substances in tobacco, so a safer cigarette would not be a cigarette at all: it would just be an excuse to ban smoking, and replace it with something completely different, hoping that smokers will just give up.

The addictive part of tobacco is nicotine. While poisonous in high concentrations, it is a mostly harmless, mild stimulant. The harm comes from all the other things contained in tobacco, and from the fact that they are burned before being inhaled.

There are other ways to get nicotine, but mostly these are marketed as smoking cessation aides rather than as smoking substitutes. Things like nicotine patches, gum, inhalers, etc. Recently a device called an "electronic cigarette" is being marketed. It's a plastic and metal cylinder the size and shape of a cigarette containing a battery, a red light and a nicotine cartridge (often called the filter).

When you suck from a charged one you get some flavoring and nicotine which allegedly is harmless, it produces a little steam with each drag and doesn't smell of tobacco smoke. I tried one in Vegas last month for a couple of drags. It doesn't taste like a Camel or a Marlboro, but it does have some form of taste. I couldn't say whether it delivered nicotine or not (two drags aren't enough). I've heard such devices are not banned where smoking is commonly forbidden, as in restaurants, aircraft and such. It costs around $140 to $160 US.

If it is harmless, or less harmful, and delivers nicotine (there are nicotine-free cartridges, too), then it would be a safe or safer alternative to smoking.

Back in the late 80s, when the smoking prohibition movement was gathering strenght, tobacco companies came up with cigarettes that used a hot coal to warm the tobacco rather than burn it. They were a flop.

[K-Mac]

I think a lot of people are addicted to the physical motion of smoking as well. Many smokers have problems in social situations once they've quit. They haven't had a cigarette in weeks, so they are likely over the nicotine addiction, yet in social situations, or when drinking in particular, they don't have that "crutch" to fall back on. Nothing in their hands, nothing to do, no nervous habit. (I think this is why many people end up with another bad habit as a result...eating or drinking too much, chewing fingernails, etc.) This physical issue could be solved by a "safe" cigarette, although I think the issue is more likely a case of low self-esteem, which of course, no cigarette ever invented will cure.

[D'kian]

This physical issue could be solved by a "safe" cigarette, although I think the issue is more likely a case of low self-esteem, which of course, no cigarette ever invented will cure.

Such a safe cigarette would be very easy to make: just shape some plastic into a cigarette shape and you're done. You can do anything you would with a regular one, except smoke it.

I don't see how self-esteem enters into it, though.

[K-Mac]

Why would people need something to fidget with in a social situation? Sounds like nervous insecurity to me.

[D'kian]

Why would people need something to fidget with in a social situation? Sounds like nervous insecurity to me.

It can be just a habit, general restlesness or even a restless mind. In just about every long meeting I've ever attended, most people begin to fiddle with assorted office scraps (clips, pens, paperweights, staplers, etc) at some point.

[K-Mac]

That's called boredom.

At any rate, I'm sure that's not every smokers' issue, it's just been a factor with a lot of smokers I've known in my lifetime.

[D'kian]

That's called boredom.

What? You can't be bored in social situations? I know I usually am (but then when a "social situation" consists of waiting for a mediocre dinner while bad music is played so loud there's no possibility of conversation... well, you get the gist).

At any rate, I'm sure that's not every smokers' issue, it's just been a factor with a lot of smokers I've known in my lifetime.

Smokers may or may not have low self-esteem. I just don't see smoking, or fidgeting, as a sign of low self-esteem. Most smokers insituations where they must refrain from smoking, such as a long flight, will fidget, get impatient, get cranky, etc until they can get a smoke.

Speaking of which, it's been my understanding that airlines never objected to various governments' restriction on inflight smoking, because they could then use less bleed air for ventilation, which meant lower fuel consumption on flights. So far so good. But in the aftermath of the recent swine flu outbreak, many airlines ahve been advertising that flying is safe as regards catching contagious diseases. Two ads from two different airlines (one flies only A-320s, the other mostly B-737s) boasted their aircraft completely exchange all the cabin air every two and a half minutes. Even in a small plane like the A-318 that's a very good rate of ventilation.

Given that, why should smoking be banned on board airplanes? Unless the airlines are lying or exagerating. Or unless the anti-smoking fetish is just too strong to bend to any argument.

[K-Mac]

What? You can't be bored in social situations?

Uh, sure, but you were talking about meetings and boring stuff. If you're so bored in a social situation, that slowly killing yourself becomes your best option, that's pretty sad. You should leave and go elsewhere or plan your social outings better.

Smokers may or may not have low self-esteem. I just don't see smoking, or fidgeting, as a sign of low self-esteem.

Like I said, it was just a personal observation. Perhaps your observations are different. Very coincidental then that most people that I know who smoked at one time and now don't, are much more well-adjusted, self-confident human beings than they were when they smoked. Just an observation though...

[D'kian]

Uh, sure, but you were talking about meetings and boring stuff. If you're so bored in a social situation, that slowly killing yourself becomes your best option, that's pretty sad. You should leave and go elsewhere or plan your social outings better.

I've yet to know anyone who smokes only when he's bored

[fountainhead777]

theres smokeless cigarettes that give the nicotine without the smoke or many of the cancer causing products.

they seem fairly interesting

[K-Mac]

I've yet to know anyone who smokes only when he's bored

Are you talking me in circles on purpose? I never said people smoke because they're bored. I said people start fidgeting in meetings when they get bored.

[D'kian]

Are you talking me in circles on purpose? I never said people smoke because they're bored. I said people start fidgeting in meetings when they get bored.

Look at your post and my quote of it. Specifically where you state:

If you're so bored in a social situation, that slowly killing yourself becomes your best option, that's pretty sad.

So unless you meant something like sucking lead out of the china, or slowly opening an artery by rubbing your wrists against the tablecloth, I assume you meant smoking.

[Jake_Ellison]

The addictive part of tobacco is nicotine. While poisonous in high concentrations, it is a mostly harmless, mild stimulant. The harm comes from all the other things contained in tobacco, and from the fact that they are burned before being inhaled.

There are other ways to get nicotine, but mostly these are marketed as smoking cessation aides rather than as smoking substitutes. Things like nicotine patches, gum, inhalers, etc. Recently a device called an "electronic cigarette" is being marketed. It's a plastic and metal cylinder the size and shape of a cigarette containing a battery, a red light and a nicotine cartridge (often called the filter).

When you suck from a charged one you get some flavoring and nicotine which allegedly is harmless, it produces a little steam with each drag and doesn't smell of tobacco smoke. I tried one in Vegas last month for a couple of drags. It doesn't taste like a Camel or a Marlboro, but it does have some form of taste. I couldn't say whether it delivered nicotine or not (two drags aren't enough). I've heard such devices are not banned where smoking is commonly forbidden, as in restaurants, aircraft and such. It costs around $140 to $160 US.

If it is harmless, or less harmful, and delivers nicotine (there are nicotine-free cartridges, too), then it would be a safe or safer alternative to smoking.

Back in the late 80s, when the smoking prohibition movement was gathering strenght, tobacco companies came up with cigarettes that used a hot coal to warm the tobacco rather than burn it. They were a flop.

The chemical addiction to nicotine makes it harder to quit smoking, if one decides to do so, but it does not cause people to make the conscious decision to continue smoking, and never even try quitting.

Why would it, there's nothing in it for the smoker? That's why nicotine gum or patches are quite easy to quit (in fact I found it took no effort, I simply hated them), and cigarettes are hard to. People love their cigarettes, not nicotine, so it's silly to attribute people choosing to smoke to nicotine alone, or the habit of smoking to "nicotine addiction".

If "nicotine addiction" were so serious, we would have more people addicted to the cheap nicotine in pharmacies, than to more expensive smoking.

[NotCrazyDan]

This is a horrible abuse of power. If you're going tax a thing for social engineering purposes, what's to stop you from taxing guns and ammunition out of existence. Guns are bad after all mkay? Sugar causes obesity. Coffee causes high blood pressure. Fossil Fuels cause global warming (laugh). Is there any end to the mischief that power hungry politicians that are eager for their own brand of 'positive change' to be implemented would cause?

This kind of crap needs to be stopped or the federal government WILL use this as a means to control the way people live their lives by making certain things that are 'bad' for us unaffordable. Count on it.

Edited June 13, 2009 by NotCrazyDan

[DavidOdden]

This kind of crap needs to be stopped or the federal government WILL use this as a means to control the way people live their lives by making certain things that are 'bad' for us unaffordable.

We need to be clear on what exactly needs to be stopped. WRT smoking and related issues, it is the idea of "free" national health care that has to be stopped, and that is the cause of the most recent piece of federal dictatorship.

[SD26]

theres smokeless cigarettes that give the nicotine without the smoke or many of the cancer causing products.

they seem fairly interesting

Yeah, isn't that the ecigarette or something? No tar, just nicotine. Just the "fun" stuff, I guess.

Personally, I think it's the big tabacco lobby trying to stop that kind of product from taking a part of their market. Similarly, I believe that it comes underneath the regular cigarette taxation issue too. Terrible, terrible unlimited government.