USCE Summer 2022: You can't change the crisis settings.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USCE Summer 2022: You can't change the crisis settings.

«‹›279 »

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

Biden administration is announcing a dramatic plan this week to require all cigarettes sold in the U.S. to eliminate nearly all nicotine from their products.

It wouldn't start until at least 2024, but cigarette manufacturers will have to remove 95% to 99% of nicotine from their products.

https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/1539227902671060992

quote:

The Science Behind Biden�s Nicotine Plan

Policy set to be announced this week follows over a decade of research suggesting sharp reduction of nicotine would help cigarette smokers quit; tobacco industry questions the research and its conclusions

Fifteen years ago, a group of scientists, government officials and tobacco control veterans met to discuss a hypothesis: Could reducing nicotine in cigarettes break smokers� addiction?

The scientific studies that stemmed from that discussion form the basis for a policy the Biden administration is expected to announce as early as Tuesday. Under this plan, the Food and Drug Administration would require the elimination of nearly all nicotine from cigarettes sold in the U.S.

�This would be really historic,� said Dorothy Hatsukami, a professor at the University of Minnesota and one of the lead scientists on the project. �You can actually change smoking behavior.�

The research, funded by the federal government and conducted by about a dozen universities over the past decade, has shown that when people use cigarettes with very low nicotine levels, they smoke fewer cigarettes, become less dependent on cigarettes, are exposed to fewer toxicants and make more attempts to quit. Smokers of these cigarettes were more likely to quit or seek their nicotine fix from less-harmful alternatives such as e-cigarettes or gum compared with smokers who continued using regular cigarettes.

The tobacco industry questions these findings.

The policy could sharply decrease U.S. cigarette sales. Marlboro maker Altria Group Inc. and Newport maker Reynolds American Inc. sell alternative products such as nicotine pouches, but revenue for both companies comes predominantly from cigarettes.

One of the tobacco-policy veterans at the 2007 meeting was Mitch Zeller, who at the FDA in the 1990s had investigated U.S. tobacco companies, leading the agency to conclude that the companies had manipulated nicotine levels in cigarettes to sustain smokers� addiction. The scientists included Dr. Hatsukami and Neal Benowitz of the University of California, San Francisco�both researchers into nicotine addiction.

Dr. Benowitz had co-written a paper in 1994 hypothesizing that one could curb smokers� addiction�and prevent young people from getting addicted in the first place�by gradually reducing the level of nicotine in cigarettes over 10 to 15 years.

Nicotine is the addictive chemical that hooks people on cigarettes. Nicotine itself doesn�t cause cancer or lung disease, according to the FDA. Those diseases are caused by scores of other harmful constituents in cigarette smoke.

�Addiction really means the loss of control,� Dr. Benowitz said in an interview. When someone is addicted to a harmful product, he said, �you lose the ability to make a reasoned decision. You�ve lost the freedom to make those judgments.�

Nearly 90% of adult daily smokers got hooked on cigarettes before they turned 18, Mr. Zeller said.

In a series of meetings following the first discussion in 2007, the group mapped out a research plan to answer key questions: Could reducing nicotine in cigarettes curb smokers� addiction? If so, what would the right level of nicotine be? And should it be reduced gradually or all at once?

The researchers also would examine whether a reduction of nicotine in cigarettes could create any risks to public health, for example by pushing people to smoke more, rather than less.

In 2009, Congress passed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, giving the FDA regulatory control over tobacco. The law made clear that the agency had the authority to mandate a reduction of nicotine in cigarettes�but only if scientific research demonstrated that the policy would benefit public health. In a provision for which tobacco companies had lobbied, the law stipulated that the FDA couldn�t eliminate nicotine in cigarettes entirely.

The researchers found that if cigarettes� nicotine strength was reduced moderately, smokers would inhale more deeply or smoke more cigarettes to compensate and satisfy their nicotine cravings. But if smokers used a research cigarette with about 95% less nicotine than a typical cigarette, they smoked fewer cigarettes and had decreased dependency. The researchers concluded that the nicotine strength should be reduced immediately on a specific date, rather than tapered down gradually.

The FDA now has enough evidence to support a rule requiring the near-elimination of nicotine in all cigarettes sold in the U.S., Mr. Zeller said. The rule wouldn�t take effect for several years.

�The public-health return on investment on this is on an almost unimaginable scale,� said Mr. Zeller, who went on to oversee U.S. tobacco regulation as director of the FDA�s Center for Tobacco Products from 2013 until his retirement earlier this year.

Cigarette smoking is the most dangerous way to consume nicotine, according to public-health officials. While very-low-nicotine cigarettes are less addictive, researchers say, their smoke still contains most of the same carcinogenic compounds as regular cigarette smoke. FDA officials have said the goal of the policy is to prevent future generations from becoming addicted to cigarettes and to help current smokers quit or switch to less-harmful alternatives. According to an FDA study published in 2018, such a rule would prompt an additional 13 million adult smokers to quit within five years of implementation.

The U.S. tobacco industry is gearing up to fight the proposal. Cigarette companies argue that the science isn�t conclusive. Industry executives also point to the fact that many study participants cheated by smoking regular cigarettes when they were supposed to be smoking only low-nicotine cigarettes. Researchers acknowledge this point.

�That certainly is a limitation of the studies, because people did not fully comply,� Dr. Benowitz said. Despite the cheating, participants reduced their nicotine intake by 70%, he said. One study in which participants couldn�t cheat because they were confined to hotel rooms showed that people smoked more intensely at first, but that the behavior declined after a week. Dr. Hatsukami added that if the policy were implemented, smokers wouldn�t have easy access to cigarettes with traditional levels of nicotine.

The tobacco companies also say the policy could lead to consumer confusion around the health risks of very-low-nicotine cigarettes. There is widespread misunderstanding in the U.S. about the health risks of nicotine. An FDA study published in 2017 found that about 75% of people either were unsure of the relationship between nicotine and cancer or incorrectly believed that nicotine causes cancer.

Drs. Benowitz and Hatsukami said they, too, are concerned about public misperceptions around nicotine and cigarettes. They said the policy should be accompanied by a public-education campaign to help people understand the purpose of reducing nicotine in cigarettes.

�The most harmful effect of nicotine is sustaining addiction to cigarettes,� Dr. Benowitz said. �If you need to take nicotine, you don�t need to take it in a way that will kill you.�

Dr. Hatsukami�s research now is looking at which alternatives�such as e-cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, patches or gum�people switch to when using very-low-nicotine cigarettes.

Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 14:13 on Jun 21, 2022

# ? Jun 21, 2022 14:06

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 28, 2024 00:07

Blue Footed Booby: Oct 4, 2006; got those happy feet

It'll be interesting to see how that one plays out. It will presumably reduce smoking, but will it lead to an uncontrollable black market?

Also, there's a point where you've functionally just banned cigarettes.

# ? Jun 21, 2022 14:21

Vahakyla: May 3, 2013

Well the cops lied about rifles and shields, too. It wasn't just "oh we only had pistols". They had rifles.

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/20/uvalde-police-shooting-response-records/

quote:

�If there�s kids in there, we need to go in�: Officers in Uvalde were ready with guns, shields and tools � but not clear orders
The Texas Tribune has reviewed law enforcement transcripts and footage that federal and state investigators are examining after the May 24 tragedy.

quote:

One such officer, a special agent at the Texas Department of Public Safety, had arrived around 20 minutes after the shooting started. He immediately asked: Are there still kids in the classrooms?

�If there is, then they just need to go in,� the agent said.

Another officer answered, �It is unknown at this time.�

The agent shot back, �Y�all don�t know if there�s kids in there?� He added, �If there�s kids in there we need to go in there.�

�Whoever is in charge will determine that,� came the reply.

The inaction appeared too much for the special agent. He noted that there were still children in other classrooms within the school who needed to be evacuated.

�Well, there�s kids over here,� he said. �So I�m getting kids out.�

# ? Jun 21, 2022 14:27

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

Blue Footed Booby posted:

Also, there's a point where you've functionally just banned cigarettes.

Current law actually prohibits banning cigarettes completely. That's why they are using executive action to remove 99% of nicotine under the authority of a cigarette regulation bill passed under Obama.

# ? Jun 21, 2022 14:33

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

Vahakyla posted:

Well the cops lied about rifles and shields, too. It wasn't just "oh we only had pistols". They had rifles.

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/20/uvalde-police-shooting-response-records/

Jesus Christ

So yes, the Uvalde cops were just a bunch of cowards then, as suspected

# ? Jun 21, 2022 14:49

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I need to do more reading on this proposed cigarette change. At root, the greatest harm involved is the nicotine itself for its addictive effects; I'm concerned with any policy plan that doesn't ultimately countenance strangling the nicotine industry (but if that were the goal, they likely wouldn't state it). There's going to be a tremendous amount of misinformation floating around regarding the underlying research.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 15:18 on Jun 21, 2022

# ? Jun 21, 2022 15:13

Kalli: Jun 2, 2001

Blue Footed Booby posted:

It'll be interesting to see how that one plays out. It will presumably reduce smoking, but will it lead to an uncontrollable black market?

Also, there's a point where you've functionally just banned cigarettes.

I don't think it will do either. It'll just shift every smoker to e-cigs and vapes, like the article mentions.

# ? Jun 21, 2022 15:24

Jaxyon: Mar 7, 2016; I’m just saying I would like to see a man beat a woman in a cage. Just to be sure.

If you think anti-choice groups are going to stop with just abortion being legal, they are not

https://twitter.com/robinmarty/status/1538913668376760320

They have boilerplate legislation ready to go that will stop people form even having access to or sharing information.

# ? Jun 21, 2022 15:25

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

Discendo Vox posted:

I need to do more reading on this proposed cigarette change. At root, the greatest harm involved is the nicotine itself for its addictive effects; I'm concerned with any policy plan that doesn't ultimately countenance strangling the nicotine industry (but if that were the goal, they likely wouldn't state it).

It says in the article that it isn't a ban on nicotine in every product - just tobacco products.

Nicotine has health risks by itself, but the vast majority of health risks from smoking comes from the tobacco and other products.

Gum, patches, and e-cigs won't be required to remove all of their nicotine. Part of the further study and follow-up plan involves people switching to other sources of nicotine. The goal is to make cigarettes essentially non-addictive to prevent people from getting hooked in the future and make people currently addicted to nicotine switch to less deadly options.

quote:

Cigarette smoking is the most dangerous way to consume nicotine, according to public-health officials. While very-low-nicotine cigarettes are less addictive, researchers say, their smoke still contains most of the same carcinogenic compounds as regular cigarette smoke. FDA officials have said the goal of the policy is to prevent future generations from becoming addicted to cigarettes and to help current smokers quit or switch to less-harmful alternatives. According to an FDA study published in 2018, such a rule would prompt an additional 13 million adult smokers to quit within five years of implementation.

quote:

�The most harmful effect of nicotine is sustaining addiction to cigarettes,� Dr. Benowitz said. �If you need to take nicotine, you don�t need to take it in a way that will kill you.�

Dr. Hatsukami�s research now is looking at which alternatives�such as e-cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, patches or gum�people switch to when using very-low-nicotine cigarettes.

# ? Jun 21, 2022 15:27

Meatball: Mar 2, 2003; That's a Spicy Meatball; Pillbug

Jaxyon posted:

If you think anti-choice groups are going to stop with just abortion being legal, they are not

https://twitter.com/robinmarty/status/1538913668376760320

They have boilerplate legislation ready to go that will stop people form even having access to or sharing information.

This will be the fugitive slave act 2.0: this time, the Supreme court will be fine with it. They will 100% compel states to arrest people in violation of other state's laws and extradite them.

# ? Jun 21, 2022 15:31

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

It says in the article that it isn't a ban on nicotine in every product - just tobacco products.

Nicotine has health risks by itself, but the vast majority of health risks from smoking comes from the tobacco and other products.

Gum, patches, and e-cigs won't be required to remove all of their nicotine. Part of the further study and follow-up plan involves people switching to other sources of nicotine. The goal is to make cigarettes essentially non-addictive to prevent people from getting hooked in the future and make people currently addicted to nicotine switch to less deadly options.

I understand that. Addiction is, itself, a health harm, and a deeper civic harm. The long term goal should be to end the consumption of nicotine.

# ? Jun 21, 2022 15:31

Randalor: Sep 4, 2011

Vahakyla posted:

Well the cops lied about rifles and shields, too. It wasn't just "oh we only had pistols". They had rifles.

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/20/uvalde-police-shooting-response-records/

It is my honest hope that if there is one good thing to come about from this tragedy, it's that gun control advocates are able to use the police's lack of a response to the crisis to ram through some form of gun control, because we know for a fact that the "A good guy with a gun" line we kept getting fed is just a load of BS. 5 officers in that image, and apparently that was too few to even try bringing down the "bad guy with a gun".

# ? Jun 21, 2022 15:31

Killer robot: Sep 6, 2010; I was having the most wonderful dream. I think you were in it!; Pillbug

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

It says in the article that it isn't a ban on nicotine in every product - just tobacco products.

Nicotine has health risks by itself, but the vast majority of health risks from smoking comes from the tobacco and other products.

Gum, patches, and e-cigs won't be required to remove all of their nicotine. Part of the further study and follow-up plan involves people switching to other sources of nicotine. The goal is to make cigarettes essentially non-addictive to prevent people from getting hooked in the future and make people currently addicted to nicotine switch to less deadly options.

Yeah, that's the reason nicotine is a big problem. On its own it's a drug that isn't impairing and only has serious long-term health impact at much higher dosages than anyone uses in practice, so it would be lower impact than almost any other recreational drug. It's just both fantastically addictive and tied to an incredibly harmful delivery method(that got socialized into being cool for kids to take up besides.) If you decouple it from the second, who gives a gently caress if nicotine gum is still around.

# ? Jun 21, 2022 15:40

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

It makes a lot more sense to reduce the amount of nicotine in cigarettes than to do what Canada has done, which is essentially the opposite: limit the amount of nicotine in tobacco-free alternatives and make them less desirable, while basically not restricting the amount of nicotine present in tobacco products. For example, tobacco-free snus must have <4 mg nicotine/pouch to be legal to even import into Canada, yet traditional tobacco snus available for sale here has up to something insane like 28mg/pouch.

Vapes are also limited as to strength, unlike cigarettes, and of course the government is trying to ban flavours entirely.

I think this proposal to make cigarettes/tobacco the least attractive form of nicotine use, rather than arguably the most attractive and most accessible, is actually quite clever.

# ? Jun 21, 2022 15:46

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

As expected, SCOTUS takes another hammer blow at the Establishment Clause

https://twitter.com/scotusblog/status/1539254884670877696?s=21&t=aSXY0NvaHzheX594Y8uCSQ

# ? Jun 21, 2022 15:51

Heck Yes! Loam!: Nov 15, 2004; a rich, friable soil containing a relatively equal mixture of sand and silt and a somewhat smaller proportion of clay.

FlamingLiberal posted:

As expected, SCOTUS takes another hammer blow at the Establishment Clause

https://twitter.com/scotusblog/status/1539254884670877696?s=21&t=aSXY0NvaHzheX594Y8uCSQ

Sotomayor calls it for what it is at least.

https://twitter.com/davidjoachim/status/1539258332564885505

# ? Jun 21, 2022 15:53

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

Biden considering supporting some measures to reduce gas prices, but basically all of them are destined to go nowhere.

- Biden is considering supporting a federal gas tax holiday (current federal gas tax is ~18 cents per gallon), but the effort is likely dead in Congress.

- Biden is considering supporting sending out gas rebate cards, but the effort is likely dead in Congress and, even if it wasn't dead in Congress, they don't know if there are enough chips available to send gas cards to everyone due to the current chip shortage.

- He is calling the heads of all the major gas companies to the White House to meet with staff "so I can get an explanation of how they justify making $35 billion in the first quarter" and because he wants "an explanation from them on why they aren't refining more oil." Says he is ruling out meeting them personally, though. There's very few options the U.S. can do to lower gas prices and this is most likely a publicity stunt to look like he is trying and is not going to lead to any meaningful change in prices. Even if U.S. refining was the one thing keeping global oil prices high (it is not), it would still take multiple years to expand refining and extraction capacity.

The latest student loan info:

- Biden will announce his student loan cancellation plan sometime near the end of July or August.

- Details aren't finalized, but it will likely be $10,000 flat forgiveness for everyone as a base. Modifications they are considering:

1) Increasing the amount forgiven for lower-income debtors with high balance loans.
2) Excluding people who have been in the top 3% of incomes (~$313,000 per year) for the last 3 years in a row.
3) Asking Congress to authorize the Secretary of Education to waive interest on existing loans and issue no interest student loans (not going anywhere in congress).

- Student loan pause that expires in September likely to be extended at least one more time until 2023.

Also, Biden didn't explicitly say that BBB negotiations are totally dead, but said that he is very confident that they can get price caps on insulin, reductions in Medicare costs, and "some" investments in renewable energy passed before the election. He said negotiations are currently underway for those and nothing is happening regarding a larger BBB right now.

Seems to indicate that they are taking the drug pricing and some renewable provisions out of BBB, trying to pass them together via reconciliation before the election, and letting the rest of it die for good.

https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1538968941644636161
https://www.businessinsider.com/student-loan-forgiveness-decision-near-biden-pause-extension-on-table-2022-6

Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 16:08 on Jun 21, 2022

# ? Jun 21, 2022 15:56

Zoph: Sep 12, 2005

Every time they extended the student loan moratorium the harder they make it to justify turning them back on again. The fact that the material details of the economy, inflation, cost of goods, etc., are dramatically worse than they were at the start of 2020 doesn't make the case any easier too. What the gently caress are they even doing.

# ? Jun 21, 2022 16:10

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

Zophar posted:

Every time they extended the student loan moratorium the harder they make it to justify turning them back on again. The fact that the material details of the economy, inflation, cost of goods, etc., are dramatically worse than they were at the start of 2020 doesn't make the case any easier too. What the gently caress are they even doing.

At least the federal government's paralysis and inability to make any tough decisions is benefiting people instead of hurting them this time?

:shrug:

# ? Jun 21, 2022 16:12

haveblue: Aug 15, 2005; Toilet Rascal

Right now someone is probably making the case that student loan payments suck money out of the economy and would help with inflation

# ? Jun 21, 2022 16:19

Star Man: Jun 1, 2008; There's a star maaaaaan
Over the rainbow

What good does freezing the gas tax do? It's coroorate greed, not regulation jacking uo the price, right?

# ? Jun 21, 2022 16:19

Vahakyla: May 3, 2013

It�s been really loving awesome to have friends who finished their SLFP without paying anything for two years.

# ? Jun 21, 2022 16:20

Epic High Five: Jun 5, 2004

FlamingLiberal posted:

As expected, SCOTUS takes another hammer blow at the Establishment Clause

https://twitter.com/scotusblog/status/1539254884670877696?s=21&t=aSXY0NvaHzheX594Y8uCSQ

A revolting, abominable institution.

haveblue posted:

Right now someone is probably making the case that student loan payments suck money out of the economy and would help with inflation

I'm 99% certain I've seen this take at least once already from one of the CNBC or Fox Business talking heads, next time the moratorium is on the chopping block I'm pretty sure it's going to be trotted out a lot now that they've figured out that they can just say whatever they want will fix inflation and nobody will call them out on it

# ? Jun 21, 2022 16:22

Dapper_Swindler: Feb 14, 2012; Im glad my instant dislike in you has been validated again and again.

Star Man posted:

What good does freezing the gas tax do? It's coroorate greed, not regulation jacking uo the price, right?

it would look good and it might knock a dollar off or so, gas will probably slowly fall and if biden at least does vague poo poo to try to alivate the pain at the pump, it might help him and the situation a bit.

# ? Jun 21, 2022 16:25

BIG-DICK-BUTT-FUCK: Jan 26, 2016; by Fluffdaddy

Discendo Vox posted:

Addiction is, itself, a health harm, and a deeper civic harm.

This is an outdated view of addiction, one that isn�t currently held by any major addiction medicine organization. Please educate yourself further before speaking out on topics of which you are ignorant. Willfully spreading this disinformation is harmful.

# ? Jun 21, 2022 16:26

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

Star Man posted:

What good does freezing the gas tax do? It's coroorate greed, not regulation jacking uo the price, right?

According to the CNN article, it would reduce gas prices for consumers by about 14.2 cents per gallon and gas retailers would make an additional 4.4 cents per gallon on retail sales.

It's not going to happen either way, but the appeal is that it is something they can do that has an immediate impact.

The gas tax pays for the federal highway fund, so a lot of congressional Democrats are against it.

Dapper_Swindler posted:

it would look good and it might knock a dollar off or so, gas will probably slowly fall and if biden at least does vague poo poo to try to alivate the pain at the pump, it might help him and the situation a bit.

The federal gas tax is only 18.6 cents per gallon. It won't knock anywhere near a dollar off, even if 100% of the reduction went to retail prices.

As noted above, the estimate is a 14.2 cents per gallon reduction in retail prices.

Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Jun 21, 2022

# ? Jun 21, 2022 16:26

Srice: Sep 11, 2011

Star Man posted:

What good does freezing the gas tax do? It's coroorate greed, not regulation jacking uo the price, right?

Yeah that's right, and not to mention the gas tax is a pretty tiny part of the overall price at the pump. There'd be far more savings for consumers if a price ceiling was implemented but if they aren't even gonna be able to get a gas tax holiday out there then it's a total pipe dream to think that could happen.

Which just gets to the fact that the simplest, most efficient way to help people with rising gas prices would be to give them money with no strings attached. Which also won't happen but hey.

# ? Jun 21, 2022 16:31

Crows Turn Off: Jan 7, 2008

Epic High Five posted:

A revolting, abominable institution.

I honestly, truly believe there is no way out of this mess for the US. This is one of many explicitly religious decisions they're making.

# ? Jun 21, 2022 16:37

kdrudy: Sep 19, 2009

Star Man posted:

What good does freezing the gas tax do? It's coroorate greed, not regulation jacking uo the price, right?

It's something for the dummies that think the president can do anything significant about the price of gas and blame him for it.

# ? Jun 21, 2022 16:42

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

The gas tax is effectively half of what it was in 1993, which was the last time it was increased. At $0.18 / gallon, the gas tax represents approximately 3.6 percent of the cost of gasoline.

# ? Jun 21, 2022 16:47

BiggerBoat: Sep 26, 2007; Don't you tell me my business again.

FlamingLiberal posted:

Jesus Christ

So yes, the Uvalde cops were just a bunch of cowards then, as suspected

Can't take down an 18 year old kid and too scared to even try while armed to teeth with tax payer funded weapons.

Blue Footed Booby posted:

It'll be interesting to see how that one plays out. It will presumably reduce smoking, but will it lead to an uncontrollable black market?

Also, there's a point where you've functionally just banned cigarettes.

I kind of wish they would and finally force my dumb rear end to quit since nothing else works but, AFAIK, the nicotine isn't itself isn't all that dangerous. It's all the other poo poo. And like someone else pointed out, I could easily see a black market underground criminal solution popping up to solve this. Prohibition, as we know, doesn't work too well and people are gonna drug so I don't know either.

# ? Jun 21, 2022 17:00

Ratmtattat: Mar 10, 2004; the hairdryer

Crows Turn Off posted:

I honestly, truly believe there is no way out of this mess for the US. This is one of many explicitly religious decisions they're making.

Explicitly religious, but only for Christianity. I don't foresee this group granting the same kinds of bonus rights to other religions.

# ? Jun 21, 2022 17:02

Seyser Koze: Dec 15, 2013; Mucho Mucho; Nap Ghost

Blue Footed Booby posted:

It'll be interesting to see how that one plays out. It will presumably reduce smoking, but will it lead to an uncontrollable black market?

Or people will smoke more to get their fix.

# ? Jun 21, 2022 17:15

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

Seyser Koze posted:

Or people will smoke more to get their fix.

According to the study, people only smoke more if they gradually reduce the nicotine. If they reduce it all at once, then a majority quit smoking or switched to other nicotine sources. It also prevents huge amounts of people from getting addicted in the first place.

quote:

The researchers found that if cigarettes� nicotine strength was reduced moderately, smokers would inhale more deeply or smoke more cigarettes to compensate and satisfy their nicotine cravings. But if smokers used a research cigarette with about 95% less nicotine than a typical cigarette, they smoked fewer cigarettes and had decreased dependency.

# ? Jun 21, 2022 17:26

World Famous W: May 25, 2007; BAAAAAAAAAAAA

BiggerBoat posted:

I kind of wish they would and finally force my dumb rear end to quit since nothing else works but, AFAIK, the nicotine isn't itself isn't all that dangerous. It's all the other poo poo. And like someone else pointed out, I could easily see a black market underground criminal solution popping up to solve this. Prohibition, as we know, doesn't work too well and people are gonna drug so I don't know either.

Do what I did and get pneumonia for a bit so you couldn't smoke even if you wanted to

# ? Jun 21, 2022 17:37

Criss-cross: Jun 14, 2022; by Fluffdaddy

There's no real incentive to pass a gas tax holiday through to the consumer, this would just increase profits.

# ? Jun 21, 2022 17:49

Papercut: Aug 24, 2005; The quickest substitution in the history of the NBA

Seyser Koze posted:

Or people will smoke more to get their fix.

It seems hard to believe people will take a 99 cigarette smoke break

# ? Jun 21, 2022 17:56

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

Elon Musk is speaking at an economic Q&A in Qatar.

- He confirmed that he is moving forward with his plan to create a Super PAC that will fund "moderates who aren't on the super extremes" in congressional races and Ron DeSantis for President. He says he currently plans to "only" contribute $25 million and will see where it goes from there.

- He is still hedging about whether he will go through with the Twitter deal. Saying that Twitter hasn't provided him with the information on bots he has asked for.

- Tells people to buy Dogecoin and says he will purchase more Dogecoin in the future.

- Says Tesla will reduce its salaried workforce by 10% in the next 3 months, increase its hourly workforce, and end remote work for most employees.

- Says that he has to take everything into consideration for his businesses, but doesn't foresee making any concessions to China regarding Twitter to support his Chinese Tesla production plants.

- Says his goal is to get "half of the world's population" on Twitter in the next 5 years.

https://twitter.com/business/status/1539157866250133505

# ? Jun 21, 2022 17:59

Yinlock: Oct 22, 2008

Heck Yes! Loam! posted:

Sotomayor calls it for what it is at least.

https://twitter.com/davidjoachim/status/1539258332564885505

Not enough to stop being good friends with the people leading the court in that direction, of course.

# ? Jun 21, 2022 18:10

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 28, 2024 00:07

Blue Footed Booby: Oct 4, 2006; got those happy feet

Yinlock posted:

Not enough to stop being good friends with the people leading the court in that direction, of course.

Truly this is the greatest crime of the supreme court.

# ? Jun 21, 2022 18:32

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USCE Summer 2022: You can't change the crisis settings.

«‹›279 »