Hacker News Reader

Comment by phil248 | Hacker News Reader

It seems like targeting the cancer-causing agents in tobacco would be more important than targeting nicotine. With less nicotine, some smokers will inevitably smoke more, thereby consuming more cancer-causing chemicals than before this move by the FDA.

View on HN

Cigarette companies have been tinkering with nicotine levels for decades. The available evidence suggests that while smokers may alter their smoking behaviour to some extent (taking longer and deeper puffs), their overall cigarette consumption does not significantly change.

As stated in the announcement, this decision is in the context of the widespread availability of reduced-harm nicotine delivery devices, namely e-cigarettes. Reducing nicotine levels in conventional cigarettes is hoped to push existing smokers towards e-cigarettes, whilst reducing the appeal and the addictive potential of cigarettes to young people.

I would hope that this decision will be backed up by pilot studies and long-term surveillance, but it seems quite reasonable prima facie.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25277253

>With less nicotine, some smokers will inevitably smoke more, thereby consuming more cancer-causing chemicals than before this move by the FDA.

Yes, this is exactly what will happen as happens with any addictive drug. The solution causes the problem to be worse. The government really needs to get out of the drug war business.

I agree in principal, but realistically I'm not sure that you can reduce the cancer-causing agents because some of them are the result of burning plant matter not additives. I think the idea they are working on is to make the product less addictive and thereby easier to quit using.

Well, for starters vapes/ecigarretes entirely avoid the cancer-causing agents of tobacco while still having nicotine. So it's pretty possible to do that for very cheap.

Except that when that liquid does hit the vaporizing bit it does create some carcinogens. Too early to tell if less/same/more carcinogenic. also,... popcorn lung.

Popcorn lung was a great example of the industry self regulating IMO. Reputable vendors all removed the problematic ingredient. Also, wasn't that whole thing overblown? I didn't follow it to closely so take this with a heap of salt, but I remember reading that the amount was way below problematic amounts even for heavy vapers.

>Too early to tell if less/same/more carcinogenic

Absolutely not. There is a substantial body of evidence showing that e-cigarette vapor is vastly less carcinogenic than tobacco smoke if the coil temperature is kept below ~220°C. Fortunately, the market is now awash with devices that have accurate temperature control.

The issue of diacetyl was potentially significant, but is now mostly fixed. Reputable manufacturers are aware of the toxicity of diacetyl and have overwhelmingly removed it from their products. Diacetyl is expected to disappear completely from e-cigarette products under the new regulatory regimes in the US and the EU. Cigarette smoke contains far greater concentrations of diacetyl than even the worst e-cigarette products tested.

This announcement by the FDA shows a clear intention to transition current smokers from combustible cigarettes to alternative nicotine delivery systems; this reflects the overwhelming body of evidence for the greatly reduced harms associated with e-cigarettes.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5377270/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1438463916...

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tox.20153/abstrac... https://academic.oup.com/ntr/article-abstract/17/2/168/28580...

Nicotine on its own is a highly addictive substance which provides no health benefits. It should be targeted just as well.

Nicotine has several health and mental benefits and is not at all addictive if taken apart from cigarettes.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-nicotine-all-b...

Er, nicotine itself is absolutely addictive, regardless of the delivery mechanism. From the article you linked: "Scientists don't doubt nicotine is addictive".

Scientists also don't doubt that caffeine is "addictive." Anything can be "addictive."

Let's put it this way: are there any scientific studies with results indicating that nicotine, by itself, has significantly stronger self reinforcing properties in comparison to caffeine.

The answer is no: there are none. Quite the opposite. Nicotine has pretty weak self reinforcing properties for all the hype. The magic is in tobacco smoke and various other drug interactions that result in the strong self reinforcing properties of tobacco smoke. So, when many people bring up nicotine's addictive properties they're really talking about tobacco smoke.

There's also the hand-mouth habit, but I digress.

So the threshold is "provides no health benefits"? Should we also target coffee in the same way (nicotine being in the same classification as caffiene)?

How about we only regulated things which are proven to be harmful?

It's not though. It's a mild stimulant, with similar benefits to caffeine. (Not health benefits per se; it helps some people focus).

> Wikipedia summarizes Guillem et al 2005 as "Technically, nicotine is not significantly addictive, as nicotine administered alone does not produce significant reinforcing properties" - the addictiveness coming from MAOIs (eg. Khalil et al 2000, Khalil et al 2006) & possibly other compounds present in tobacco; while there don’t seem to many human studies aside from the Amsterdam et al 2006 review on the observed inhibition in smokers (consistent with the MAOIs playing a role in addiction), there are a number of significant animal studies:

https://www.gwern.net/Nicotine

Not to say it's not addictive at all, I'm mildly addicted to nicotine gum, to about the same extent I'm addicted to caffeine (if it's available I'll certainly take it, but if I run out, I'm not rushing to the store to buy more).

Perhaps the FDA should regular sugar and the amounts of it which make it into our drinks, bread, prepared sauces, etc.

One of the first things you notice when coming to America from Europe is just how damn sweet everything is. Even your eggs seem too sweet, let alone your drinks and actual sweets.

Maybe regulation is a good idea.

You could say the same about sugar.

nootropic

Nicotine is not that addictive. Coffee is just as physically addictive in my opinion. And I've actually managed to quit using nicotine several times whereas I've only successfully quit coffee once (and I'm back on it). Also, it does have health benefits, if alertness, relaxation, and mental clarity are health benefits, which are some of the effects of alcohol and coffee. Why does everything have to have a health benefit? I think some people would just lose it if they didn't have nicotine. Anyway, what's the harm to you?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com