Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Current Events Current Events Forum - Latest political news and events


Thanks Tree13Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old August 12th, 2017, 06:57 PM   #1
concerned citizen
 
titan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Adirondack Park, NY
Posts: 702
a) Should the FDA have most nicotine removed from cigarettes sold in the U.S.? b) Q?

The FDA's Dr. Scott Gotlieb observes that tobacco remains the leading cause of preventable death in the U.S.

So Gotlieb has FDA plan to reduce nicotine in cigarettes sold here, reports Professor Kristy Andersen from Syracuse University.

She claims such nicotine reduction would make cigarettes much less addictive. We could still buy cigarettes. But she says they'd be easier to quit.

One of my questions:

What about those already addicted to regular cigarettes, and the nicotine they contain? Will they have to give up nicotine cold turkey when they switch to the new, doctored type of cigarette replacements?

And what's next? Scotch with most of the ethanol removed? Salt pork without the salt?
Thanks from Twisted Sister
titan is offline  
Old August 12th, 2017, 06:59 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 9,538
And yet heroin is illegal, not as much money in it as tobacco.
goober is offline  
Old August 12th, 2017, 07:22 PM   #3
M(A)GA
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 23,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
And yet heroin is illegal, not as much money in it as tobacco.
Ask the CIA, there is way more money in heroin especially when it is illegal.
Sabcat is offline  
Old August 12th, 2017, 07:22 PM   #4
M(A)GA
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 23,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by titan View Post
The FDA's Dr. Scott Gotlieb observes that tobacco remains the leading cause of preventable death in the U.S.

So Gotlieb has FDA plan to reduce nicotine in cigarettes sold here, reports Professor Kristy Andersen from Syracuse University.

She claims such nicotine reduction would make cigarettes much less addictive. We could still buy cigarettes. But she says they'd be easier to quit.

One of my questions:

What about those already addicted to regular cigarettes, and the nicotine they contain? Will they have to give up nicotine cold turkey when they switch to the new, doctored type of cigarette replacements?

And what's next? Scotch with most of the ethanol removed? Salt pork without the salt?

Screw the FDA.
Sabcat is offline  
Old August 12th, 2017, 07:28 PM   #5
concerned citizen
 
titan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Adirondack Park, NY
Posts: 702
Please forgive me g2.

Of course you're right. Completely.

BUT !!

The utterly preposterous triple-standard U.S. governments inflict is such a conspicuous absurdity that my jaded position has become that of acceptance.
I rarely point it out anymore, simply because it's such a glaring absurdity.

But you are indeed right.

++++++++++++

In the case of tobacco, there's more than mere pharmacology at issue.
Isn't tobacco a New World plant / product?
Introduced to European pilgrims by aboriginal Americans?

IIRC
Our Supreme Court building has columns in front.
And iirc atop each of those columns are leaf clusters.
And iirc those leaves are intended to represent tobacco leaves.

Tobacco is entrained in our culture, going back in American history far earlier than the U.S. Founding.

I'm not sure the poppy hold such prestigious tenure in America.
Thanks from Sabcat
titan is offline  
Old August 12th, 2017, 07:31 PM   #6
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 27,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by titan View Post
Please forgive me g2.

Of course you're right. Completely.

BUT !!

The utterly preposterous triple-standard U.S. governments inflict is such a conspicuous absurdity that my jaded position has become that of acceptance.
I rarely point it out anymore, simply because it's such a glaring absurdity.

But you are indeed right.

++++++++++++

In the case of tobacco, there's more than mere pharmacology at issue.
Isn't tobacco a New World plant / product?
Introduced to European pilgrims by aboriginal Americans?

IIRC
Our Supreme Court building has columns in front.
And iirc atop each of those columns are leaf clusters.
And iirc those leaves are intended to represent tobacco leaves.

Tobacco is entrained in our culture, going back in American history far earlier than the U.S. Founding.

I'm not sure the poppy hold such prestigious tenure in America.
More importantly, tobacco farmers are a big part of the economy of a few states and farmers have a disproportionate influence on elections. And drug lords don't buy as many politicians as big pharma.

And therein lies the tale.
Thanks from Clara007
RNG is offline  
Old August 12th, 2017, 07:56 PM   #7
concerned citizen
 
titan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Adirondack Park, NY
Posts: 702
R #6

$Money ?!

So THAT'S what it's all about !!

- omg -
Quote:
"Screw the FDA." Sc #4
This is an extremely important point Sc, perhaps particularly vexing for libertarians.

It's the distinction between what CAN be done, and what SHOULD be done.

The FDA has the POWER to do this.
And exercising that power in that way could literally save hundreds of thousands of American lives a year, for perpetuity.

BUT !!

Should it?
And where does that slippery slope lead?
What would be next?

We already know about NYC Mayor Bloomberg's war on sugary drinks.

So next it'll be no salt on popcorn?

Part of the problem with all this mothering U.S. citizens get from government is:
it results in making common sense a whole lot less common.

Seriously.
The best, most effective form of restraint is self-restraint.
When we're mothered about:
- don't drive any faster than the posted speed limit
- buckle your seat-belt
- don't drink & drive

The list is long, and infantilizing.
And it's cradle to grave.
We're not deemed competent to attend to our own retirement.
So there's not only Social Security.
There's also Medicaid, Medicare, and lord knows what else.
Weren't we really better off when we were SELF-reliant?
Thanks from Sabcat
titan is offline  
Old August 12th, 2017, 08:10 PM   #8
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 27,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by titan View Post
R #6

$Money ?!

So THAT'S what it's all about !!

- omg -

This is an extremely important point Sc, perhaps particularly vexing for libertarians.

It's the distinction between what CAN be done, and what SHOULD be done.

The FDA has the POWER to do this.
And exercising that power in that way could literally save hundreds of thousands of American lives a year, for perpetuity.

BUT !!

Should it?
And where does that slippery slope lead?
What would be next?

We already know about NYC Mayor Bloomberg's war on sugary drinks.

So next it'll be no salt on popcorn?

Part of the problem with all this mothering U.S. citizens get from government is:
it results in making common sense a whole lot less common.

Seriously.
The best, most effective form of restraint is self-restraint.
When we're mothered about:
- don't drive any faster than the posted speed limit
- buckle your seat-belt
- don't drink & drive

The list is long, and infantilizing.
And it's cradle to grave.
We're not deemed competent to attend to our own retirement.
So there's not only Social Security.
There's also Medicaid, Medicare, and lord knows what else.
Weren't we really better off when we were SELF-reliant?
I am torn here. In one way I am a great believer in letting Darwin have his way. Today anyway, the information on the danger of smoking is out there. I'm sure there are still deniers but that is part of the Darwin thing. So, if they want to kill themselves, let them.

BUT ... and this is my one bitch about single payer healthcare. Since I am apt to have to pay for stupid people's stupid choices like smoking, not wearing helmets on motorcycles, not wearing seatbelts in cars and such, the government has a right to legislate those things. They are not any longer a self inflicted injure without other victims.
Thanks from titan
RNG is offline  
Old August 12th, 2017, 08:52 PM   #9
concerned citizen
 
titan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Adirondack Park, NY
Posts: 702
Thumbs up It's as if you read my mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
I am torn here. In one way I am a great believer in letting Darwin have his way. Today anyway, the information on the danger of smoking is out there. I'm sure there are still deniers but that is part of the Darwin thing. So, if they want to kill themselves, let them.

BUT ... and this is my one bitch about single payer healthcare. Since I am apt to have to pay for stupid people's stupid choices like smoking, not wearing helmets on motorcycles, not wearing seatbelts in cars and such, the government has a right to legislate those things. They are not any longer a self inflicted injure without other victims.
If I may comment on your paragraph #1:

Denying anthropgenic climate change is a potential exposure to the entire planet.
Pretending the carcinogens in tobacco are therapeutic is rather more self-destructive.
BUT!! You nailed it.

THEY get the pleasure (of smoking), and
WE get the pain of the medical bills.

The silver lining in that grey cloud is:

If they die at age 56 from cigarettes instead of 92 from being crushed by the piano, we save a lot of Social Security payments.
Thanks from RNG and Sabcat
titan is offline  
Old August 12th, 2017, 08:53 PM   #10
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 27,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by titan View Post
If I may comment on your paragraph #1:

Denying anthropgenic climate change is a potential exposure to the entire planet.
Pretending the carcinogens in tobacco are therapeutic is rather more self-destructive.
BUT!! You nailed it.

THEY get the pleasure (of smoking), and
WE get the pain of the medical bills.

The silver lining in that grey cloud is:

If they die at age 56 from cigarettes instead of 92 from being crushed by the piano, we save a lot of Social Security payments.
There is an element of truth there.
RNG is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Tags
cigarettes, fda, nicotine, removed, sold



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New York, Cigarettes, Tax Law, and Crime Sabcat Big Government 1 September 21st, 2016 05:35 AM
Why do we tax cigarettes? Sabcat Taxes 104 April 18th, 2016 05:17 PM
Turbans, AK-47s and Cigarettes, Oh My! The Bare Knuckled Pundit Politicians 0 July 16th, 2008 04:39 AM
One Joint Could Have Similar Impact to 5 Cigarettes... tadpole256 Drugs, Alcohol, Tobacco 49 October 19th, 2007 08:40 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.