Low nicotine, low profits

[Toby iVapour]

Low nicotine, low profits: Well, that’s the end of ultra-low nicotine cigarettes
https://thecritic.co.uk/low-nicotine-low-profits/

From Christopher Snowdon -

The idea of taking nicotine out of cigarettes has been around for decades. Every now and again, someone in “public health” proposes it as a backdoor route to prohibition but is talked out of it by a grown up. Only in recent years have they found any politicians dopey enough to seriously consider it.

Heavily assisted by the US government, the XXII experiment was supposed to prove that these products were commercially viable, thereby legitimising the FDA’s plans for a legal nicotine limit that would be close to zero. But, as the e-cigarette trade association American Vapor Manufacturers says: “The federal government wasted hundreds of millions of dollars in R&D, despite firm warnings from leading tobacco science experts, outlawed competition, fast-tracked FDA approval, all to help bring a cigarette to market that no one wants.”
A company that was once worth nearly a billion dollars now has a market cap of $28 million.

 

[Digbys]

?

 

[ZenAnarchi]

Is the gist of this thread that low-nicotine cigs are the exact opposite of e-cigarettes?

Has to be the silliest product ever approved by the even sillier FDA

 

[Toby iVapour]

Is the gist of this thread that low-nicotine cigs are the exact opposite of e-cigarettes?

Yes, but the FDA authorisation of these very low nicotine (VLN) cigarettes was also with a view of a strategy (July 2017) of "lowering nicotine levels in combustible cigarettes to non-addictive levels".

Clive Bates goes into more detail (from Dec 2021)-
FDA spreads confusion about nicotine and smoking
https://clivebates.com/fda-spreads-confusion-about-nicotine-and-smoking/

In one of its most ill-judged moves to date, the US Food and Drug Administration has today granted 22nd Century Group the right to market its VLN King and VLN Menthol King combusted, filtered cigarettes as modified risk tobacco products.
It has done this because these products are reduced in nicotine and, FDA concludes, anyone who is willing to smoke them will experience lower exposures to nicotine. But we have known for a long time that “people smoke for the nicotine but die from the tar” (Mike Russell). This is a product that reduces the nicotine but keeps the tar. What could possibly go wrong?

The problems with this – a quick thought experiment
If you want a quick route to understanding how bad this is: imagine taking the popular Juul product and modifying it to reduce the nicotine to a negligible level and then (somehow) increasing the toxicity of the aerosol to be equivalent to that of cigarette smoke. Once you have created a new toxic but inadequate substitute for smoking, then it goes on the market with FDA approved claims saying that it will help you cut down on smoking and nicotine use. It couldn’t be more ridiculous – a super-toxic low-nicotine Juul would never even be allowed on the market in the first place, let alone blessed by FDA.

And -
Twenty reasons to be sceptical about rules lowering nicotine levels in cigarettes – and what to do instead
https://clivebates.com/twenty-reaso...-levels-in-cigarettes-and-what-to-do-instead/

Using regulation to remove nearly all the nicotine from cigarettes is similar in effect to a prohibition – with all that entails. That will trigger a wide range of responses by consumers and suppliers.

 

[Simon G]

?

My first thoughts too.

 

[Rickster]

Was Silk Cut not mild/lower nic or was that a gimmick....I seem to remember they had wee perforated holes in the filter end

 

[Toby iVapour]

Was Silk Cut not mild/lower nic or was that a gimmick....I seem to remember they had wee perforated holes in the filter end

Well, Silk Cut was a bit lower due to diluting the smoke with air from the perforations (users tended to to take longer harder drags to compensate), but a VLN cigarette has 95% less nicotine (that I think is taken out of the tobacco by some process), and so you would have to smoke a pack of 20 to get the same amount of nic as 1 normal cigarette.

 

[Rickster]

Well, Silk Cut was a bit lower due to diluting the smoke with air from the perforations (users tended to to take longer harder drags to compensate), but a VLN cigarette has 95% less nicotine (that I think is taken out of the tobacco by some process), and so you would have to smoke a pack of 20 to get the same amount of nic as 1 normal cigarette.

Aye I get that...which is drastic, but like eliquid with different nic strengths .... if fags had the same customisation to lower nic gradually surely it would help in some way

 

[Toby iVapour]

Aye I get that...which is drastic, but like eliquid with different nic strengths .... if fags had the same customisation to lower nic gradually surely it would help in some way

Maybe for some people, if they were available in different strengths.. but wouldn't have worked for me as I've been vaping 18-24mg since 2008, with no desire (or probably the capability) to cut down...

But what would be the point in having very low nicotine, but with all the toxins?

 

[Rickster]

Maybe for some people, if they were available in different strengths.. but wouldn't have worked for me as I've been vaping 18-24mg since 2008, with no desire (or probably the capability) to cut down...

But what would be the point in having very low nicotine, but with all the toxins?

People would gradually reduce the nic well aware of the toxins, with a view to quit(surely beats/helps going cold turkey....Im no expert and Im assuming that nic is the most addictive substance in cigarettes