A study published in the Journal of Health Economics addresses the topic of tobacco use in the wake of cannabis legalization. Entitled “Have recreational marijuana laws undermined public health progress on adult tobacco use?” researchers found that cannabis reform in individual states has led to decreased tobacco use. The study was conducted by Bentley University, San Diego State University, and Georgia State University. “This study is the first to comprehensively examine the impact of the legalization of recreational marijuana on adult tobacco use,” authors explained.
Researchers reveal three key findings in their study. First, that “first-stage” results from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) and Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) “show consistent evidence that RML [recreational marijuana laws] adoption increases adult marijuana use by 2- to 5-percentage-points, including through vaping.”
Second, authors state that they “find no evidence that legalization of recreational marijuana increases adult tobacco use.” And lastly, that “RML adoption accompanied by the opening of recreational marijuana dispensaries is associated with larger increases in ENDS [electronic nicotine delivery system] use than RML adoption without open dispensaries.”
However, they conclude that the rise of cannabis has led to cautionary warnings from public health experts who call for more research. One of their primary concerns is that the rise of cannabis smoking could lead to an unintended “renormalization of smoking” that could potentially set back existing tobacco control policies.
The Surgeon General report of 1964 is famous for connecting tobacco use to lung cancer, stating that smoking cigarettes was “responsible for a 70% increase in mortality rate of smokers over non-smokers,” according to the National Library of Medicine. According to Surgeon General Luther L. Terry, the report “hit the country like a bombshell. It was front page news and a lead story on every radio and television station in the United States and many abroad.”
Nearly 60 years later, tobacco use has widely decreased. The authors found that tobacco use fell earlier in states with recreational cannabis legalization than those without. “The results provide some support for the hypothesis that tobacco use declined in several of the earliest adopting states, most notably in Colorado and Washington, which are also those states that saw the largest increases in marijuana use following RML enactment,” authors concluded.
Authors also pointed out that the tobacco use reduction is “consistent with the hypothesis that recreational marijuana and tobacco may be substitutes for some adults.”
In February, California legislators introduced a bill that would ban tobacco sales to anyone born after 2006 to phase out tobacco use and addiction. However, big tobacco industry leaders are continuing to find new ways to move into the cannabis industry. One of the biggest tobacco companies in the world, British American Tobacco (BAT), announced last September that it would be purchasing a Germany-based cannabis company called Sanity Group GmbH. “We continue to transform our business, through better understanding of our current and future consumers, as part of our A Better Tomorrow purpose,” said BAT Chief Growth Officer Kingsley Wheaton last year.
Data from other studies still shows evidence that tobacco use continues to plummet. A May 2022 study found that cannabis legalization has contributed to a decrease in alcohol and cigarette consumption. Another study from July 2022 shows that cannabis use is supported by Australians much more than tobacco use, and a Gallup poll released one month later in August 2022 also showed how Americans smoke more cannabis than cigarettes.
For centuries, human beings have taken part in the habit of smoking cigarettes. In various forms people have consumed tobacco and the addictive substance of nicotine. However, with new disposable vapes causing concern for the environment, it does beg the question: are cigarette butts recyclable? The truth is, this problematic form of litter that can be found in virtually every corner of the world.
According to the Cigarette Butt Pollution Project, an estimated 4.5 trillion cigarette butts are littered each year, making them the most common form of litter on the planet. While there has been a growing awareness of the negative impact of cigarette butts on the environment and public health, there is still confusion about whether or not cigarette butts are recyclable. We’re going to explore this, as well as examine the potential benefits and challenges of recycling them.
What are Cigarette Butts made of?
Don’t be concerned if you don’t know what cigarettes are made out of – we’re going to go through that now. Cigarette butts are small, often overlooked pieces of litter that are composed of a combination of cellulose acetate and various chemicals. Cellulose acetate is a type of plastic that is used to create the filter found at the end of most cigarettes. This material is designed to trap some of the harmful chemicals found in cigarette smoke, such as tar and carbon monoxide, before they are inhaled. That’s why anyone who smokes a cigarette without a filter is enhancing the damage it will have on the body. However, this filter material is also responsible for much of the environmental impact associated with cigarette butts. Earth Day writes:
“Cigarette butts are actually the most abundant form of plastic waste in the world, with about 4.5 trillion individual butts polluting our global environment… cigarette filters, or the plastic part of butts, can take up to 10 years to completely degrade”
Why Are Cigarette Butts a Problem?
As the quote suggests, when cigarette butts are discarded, they can take years to break down. During this time, they release harmful chemicals and microplastics into the environment. These chemicals can leach into soil and water, potentially harming wildlife and posing a risk to human health. In addition to the environmental impact, cigarette butts are also an eyesore, and their presence can contribute to a negative perception of a place. Many people assume that each part of a cigarette is recyclable, especially due to the fact that so many smokers gracefully throw them onto the floor all the time. However, this is simply not true. Why do more people not know about this? You wouldn’t throw a piece of plastic on the floor (at least most wouldn’t), so why is it so common to throw away a cigarette butt?
Recycling Cigarette Butts: Is It Possible?
While cigarette butts are made of plastic, they are not commonly recycled in most municipal recycling programs. This is due to the fact that the filter material is often contaminated with tobacco and other chemicals, which makes it difficult to separate and recycle. Additionally, the small size and lightweight nature of cigarette butts make them difficult to capture in recycling streams, and they can easily become mixed in with other forms of litter.
Despite these challenges, there are a number of initiatives aimed at recycling cigarette butts. Some companies are experimenting with new technologies that can separate and recycle the plastic and other materials found in cigarette butts. These technologies range from mechanical separation methods to chemical processes that can dissolve the filter material, leaving behind the plastic and other components for recycling. In addition to these technological solutions, there are also grassroots efforts to recycle cigarette butts.
One example is the TerraCycle Cigarette Waste Brigade, which collects and recycles cigarette butts and other tobacco products. This program has partnered with a number of companies and organizations to collect and recycle cigarette waste, and has diverted millions of cigarette butts from landfills. There was even a situation recently, in a Swedish city, where they attempted to train a mass of crows to pick up the cigarette butts for rewards. The city in particular has around 1 million butts littered every year. They believe it will save 75% of the cleaning costs. Whilst this is still a trial concept, it highlights the possibility.
The Benefits of Recycling Cigarette Butts
It is evident that we’re now facing a climate emergency on Earth. Every single possible sign is pointing towards this. Well, the fact that cigarette butts are the most common form of littering, proves why dealing with this issue is so important. Thus, the benefits of recycling cigarette butts are numerous. Let’s take a look at some of these.
Environmental protection
As we’ve established, cigarette butts are the most commonly littered item in the world, and they can take years to decompose. Recycling cigarette butts helps prevent them from ending up in landfills, waterways, and other natural habitats, protecting the environment and wildlife. In the UK, 52% of smokers believed that throwing a cigarette butt down the drain was acceptable. This highlights the issue at hand. People are not aware of the problem, and this needs to be resolved. 1 cigarette alone is extremely toxic to water animals.
Resource conservation
Recycling is also majorly important for re-using integral resources. Recycling cigarette butts can recover valuable materials, such as plastic and paper fibers, that can be reused in other products, reducing the need for new materials and conserving natural resources.
Thanks for being here. We provide email updates via the Cannadelics Weekly Newsletter, which also comes full of top notch deals on products like cannabis buds, vapes and related equipment, edibles, smoking devices, cannabinoid compounds, and a whole bunch more. Getting stoned is fun. Do so responsibly!
Gas emissions
By recycling cigarette butts, less waste goes to landfills, which can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and extend the life of landfills.
Public health benefits
Cigarette butts can contain toxic chemicals that can harm the environment and human health. Recycling cigarette butts can help reduce exposure to these chemicals and improve public health. In addition, the simple aesthetic of a city or location can be improved massively by a reduction of thrown cigarette butts.
Challenges to Recycling Cigarette Butts
Whilst this is all completely true, the simple fact is that recycling cigarette butts is not happening enough right now. But why is this? Well, recycling would seem like an obvious solution to the problem of cigarette butt litter. However, doing this can be difficult for a number of reasons.
Contamination
One of the biggest challenges to recycling cigarette butts is contamination. As we’ve said, cigarette filters are made of a combination of cellulose acetate and various chemicals, including tar and other toxins. These chemicals can make the filters difficult to recycle, as they can contaminate other materials in the recycling stream. Additionally, the filters may be contaminated with the saliva and other bodily fluids of the smoker, which can pose a health risk to recycling workers.
Size
Cigarette butts are also difficult to recycle because of their small size. They are lightweight and can easily become mixed in with other forms of litter. This can make it difficult to capture cigarette butts in recycling streams, and they can end up in landfills or the environment.
Another challenge to recycling cigarette butts is the lack of infrastructure. Many recycling programs are not equipped to handle cigarette butts, and they are not accepted in most municipal recycling programs. This lack of infrastructure means that cigarette butts are often not properly disposed of, and end up as litter.
Lack of awareness
Finally, there is a lack of awareness about the problem of cigarette butt litter and the potential for recycling. Many people do not realise that cigarette butts are not biodegradable and can take years to break down. They may also be unaware that recycling cigarette butts is possible. Education certainly needs to increase if we want to globally deal with the issue of cigarette butts.
Hope
Whilst recycling cigarette butts is difficult due to a number of factors – including contamination, small size, lack of infrastructure, and lack of awareness – the environmental impact of cigarette butt litter is significant. Therefore, the efforts to recycle these items are important for reducing the amount of litter in the environment, conserving resources, and creating economic opportunities in the recycling industry. With the BinTheButt campaigning, and others like it, gaining traction, the awareness of the problem is certainly increasing. Plus, new technologies and infrastructure are being developed, so it is possible that recycling cigarette butts could become more common in the coming years. Whether it be done by flying crows or hard work, recycling cigarette butts is integral to life’s survival on Earth.
Thanks for joining us! Welcome to Cannadelics.com; where we work daily to bring you the very best in cannabis and psychedelics news reporting. Head our way frequently to stay in-the-loop, and sign up for the Cannadelics Weekly Newsletter, so you’re never late to get a story.
A recent study conducted by Washington State University (WSU) examined how CBD could potentially help curb cigarette smoking. It was originally published in the journal Chemical Research in Toxicology on Jan. 10, but the university shared a press release about its findings on Feb. 16.
“The whole mission is to decrease harm from smoking, which is not from the nicotine per se, but all the carcinogens and other chemicals that are in tobacco smoke,” said Philip Lazarus, Senior Author and WSU Professor of Pharmaceutical Sciences. “If we can minimize that harm, it would be a great thing for human health.”
The study found that CBD slowed many nicotine enzymes, including the enzyme CYP2A6 which metabolizes more than 70% of nicotine in smokers. The researchers found that CBD inhibited the activity of CYP2A6 by 50%. “In other words, it appears that you don’t need much CBD to see the effect,” Lazarus said.
Lazarus and his team are currently working on a clinical study to learn more about how CBD can affect nicotine in smokers by measuring a participant’s nicotine levels in their blood between a six-to-eight-hour period. Eventually, the team hopes to expand their research efforts to examine CBD and nicotine addiction on a larger scale as well. The most recent study was conducted with the help of a grant from the National Institute of Health.
In August 2021, researchers at Mydecine Innovations Group signed a five-year research agreement with Johns Hopkins University to analyze how psychedelic formulations could help smokers overcome smoking addiction.
However, many cigarette smokers are just moving to cannabis consumption instead. The annual Gallup Consumption Survey published in August last year found that only 11% of Americans identified as cigarette smokers, and 16% identified as cannabis consumers. The percentage of cigarette smokers is at it’s lowest percentage yet since Gallup began asking the questions in the 1940s. In 1947, when asked if participants have smoked cigarettes in the past week, 41% said yes. In 1949 the percentage rose to 44%, and reached a height of 45% in 1954.
“Smoking cigarettes is clearly on the decline and is most likely to become even more of a rarity in the years ahead,” said Gallup Author Frank Newport about the newest results. “This reflects both public awareness of its negative effects and continuing government efforts at all levels to curtail its use. Smoking remains legal in general but is prohibited in many public places, offices, modes of transportation and in private places across the U.S. Each pack of cigarettes carries draconian warning messages about their harmful effects.”
An Australia-based study found similar results with residents preferring cannabis to smoking tobacco. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare analyzed data from 2019 in its newest analysis, and found that 20% of respondents support regular cannabis use, and only 15% support tobacco use.
Legislators in some states such as California are introducing bills to ban tobacco completely. Assembly Bill 935, which was recently introduced by Assemblymembers Damon Connolly and Evan Low, would ban tobacco products for anyone born after Jan. 1, 2007. “Preventing the next generation of Californians from becoming addicted to smoking should be a priority for anyone who cares about public health and the well-being of our children,” Connolly said.
If you don’t mix tobacco in your weed and none of your friends mix tobacco in their weed, right on, you’re killing it, this one isn’t for you.
The way we smoke weed has gone through some pretty rapid changes over the past few decades—dabs, pre-rolls, vape pens, and plenty of USB-C charged devices that will instantly vaporize your favorite flower or concentrate. So why are you still mixing tobacco into your joints?
Weed is too good to fuck up with a heavy sprinkle of American Spirit and you’re lying to yourself with every attempt to justify the outdated blend. It’s time to move beyond spliffs.
People have been smoking spliffs—joints rolled with a mix of cannabis and tobacco—since the first documented instance of weed being rolled in Guadalajara, Mexico circa 1856. The tradition continued across the globe, with hash frequently mixed with tobacco and rolled for easy consumption. These days, spliffs are still popular across the U.S. Sure, it’s more prevalent in some places than others, but I know heavy stoners from New York to L.A. and plenty in between who keep a pack of cigs or pouch of loose leaf in their smoking kits at all times.
Times change though, and as we barrel headfirst into 2023, the excuses left for spliffing your weed are growing thinner than a king size rice paper.
The most common reason I get when I ask people why they still add tobacco to their weed is that it “burns better,” and to that, I say this: learn how to roll better joints. If your joints are burning unevenly without tobacco, that’s a you problem, not a weed problem. Try packing it a little tighter, try pulling on it a little lighter, roll practice joints over and over until your fingers turn green and every single one looks, lights, and burns perfectly—it will be worth it, I promise.
Next, spliff smokers will say that tobacco helps save them weed and therefore money. But weed is cheaper than it’s ever been and only getting cheaper while tobacco is only getting more expensive, with many cities and states adding higher and higher taxes for cigarettes and loose leaf. It might make some slight economic sense, but unless you’re spliffing top-shelf flower (we’ll get to that) you can probably afford to roll without tobacco; try buying shake or pre-ground weed if you need to make your bag stretch. If you’re really looking to make your favorite strain last, mix in some shake or mids with your exotics—just think of it as spliffing your joint with more weed.
What about the argument that adding tobacco to your weed gets you higher? First, I don’t believe that smoking less of the plant that does get you high and replacing it with the plant that doesn’t get you high will result in you getting higher. You know what will definitely get you higher? More weed. Don’t trust my back of the napkin math? Here’s a peer-reviewed study that says the same thing.
Funny enough, I have also heard the opposite explanation, that weed alone is simply too intoxicating, and that tobacco helps to ease the effects. In that instance, I simply recommend smoking less weed.
Most importantly though, stop spliffing your weed because it completely changes the flavor of your flower.
Decades of arduous, focused, illegal cannabis breeding have created a plant that is potent and flavorful with a constantly evolving menu of unique varieties. Tobacco and weed mixed just fine in the flavorless days of brick weed and densely packed black hash, but the way weed smells, tastes, and smokes in 2023? It’s a thing of art. Why dilute that experience?
I have slightly more patience for blunts, mainly because they do not disguise the presence of tobacco like a spliff does, and because they don’t ruin the flavor of the weed quite as much, but at the end of the day, sacrificing any amount of terp profile for the sake of a nicotine buzz is still kind of a bummer in my book.
I’m not here to judge your tobacco consumption, smoke 10 cigarettes right before we smoke a joint and another half a pack after, all good, I’m just here to defend weed.
Conversely, around 16% of Americans identified as current cannabis smokers, according to Gallup.
For the first time, the pollster asked Americans if they are current users of cannabis edibles, with 14% reporting that they are.
The findings were foreshadowed by the previous decade, when dozens of states and cities ended the prohibition on pot and Americans turned away en masse from tobacco––often in favor of smokeless nicotine vapes that may or may not be safer.
In 2019, Gallup’s “Consumption Poll” found that only 15% of Americans reported as cigarette smokers, at the time a new low and substantially lower than the 45% of U.S. adults who said they were back in the 1940s. That poll showed that 12% of Americans reported as marijuana smokers.
“Smoking cigarettes is clearly on the decline and is most likely to become even more of a rarity in the years ahead. This reflects both public awareness of its negative effects and continuing government efforts at all levels to curtail its use. Smoking remains legal in general but is prohibited in many public places, offices, modes of transportation and in private places across the U.S. Each pack of cigarettes carries draconian warning messages about their harmful effects,” Gallup’s Frank Newport wrote in his analysis of the latest survey.
Cannabis has perhaps never been more accessible in the U.S. and pot smokers never more ubiquitous––despite the ongoing federal prohibition.
“Despite its widespread use, alcohol’s downsides have been recognized in the U.S. for centuries. This awareness reached a climax over a hundred years ago, when the 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution — passed by Congress and ratified by 46 of the 48 states — banned the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol. While the resulting Prohibition may have actually lowered the consumption of alcohol as intended, it had numerous other unanticipated negative consequences and was repealed some 13 years after it took effect,” Newport wrote.
Gallup released findings last year that found a new high of 68% of Americans believe that marijuana should be legal.
But as far as its effects, the country is split.
In the latest “Consumption Poll,” 53% said that marijuana has a positive effect on its users, while 45% said it has a negative effect.
But when it comes to marijuana’s effect on society, 49% said it is positive, while 50% said it is negative.
Gallup’s latest survey found that alcohol remains far more prevalent than either marijuana or cigarettes. About 45% said they had an alcoholic drink in the last week, while 23% said they have one occasionally. A third identified as complete abstainers.
“The future of alcohol drinking presents the most fascinating sociological case study out of the three substances. Alcohol use has been remarkably steady over the past 80 years (the time during which Gallup has measured it). In fact, alcohol has been widely used in the U.S. since the nation’s founding. Its use continues to be intertwined with many aspects of American culture, including social and — in some instances — religious rituals. Alcohol is also a major contributor to the nation’s economy. If the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, then the best guess would be to predict no significant change in alcohol use going forward,” Newport wrote.
Smoking is pretty bad, that’s for sure. So bad that the number of smoking deaths a year eclipses the number of opioid deaths, and that’s saying a lot. In a recent report, Biden stated that he wants to reduce the nicotine level in cigarettes, as a way to reduce smoking in general. Can this help though? And why is the research on this topic so conflicting?
The new thing of the Biden administration is that it wants to reduce the nicotine level allowable in cigarettes, but this seems like a strange move when vaping already provides a safer answer. This news site focuses on stories covering the expanding cannabis and psychedelics industries of today. Keep up with everything by signing up for THC Weekly Newsletter, and also get access to a range of deals on tons of products including cannabinoid compounds like HHC-O, Delta 8, Delta 9 THC, Delta-10 THC, THCO, THCV, THCP & HHC. As always, we only advice consumers purchase products they are fully comfortable using.
The damage of smoking
Smoking anything is bad. This is the first thing to really know about smoking. Though tobacco often gets a bad rap, it’s merely a plant. A plant which has been used medicinally for thousands of years, and without a huge death count. Truth is, there are plenty of substances in life which are safe to take one way, and unsafe to take in others. Mushrooms for example are eaten, but they aren’t smoked. So it’s not that weird to say tobacco doesn’t have to be bad, if not used in a bad way.
The real culprit is the act of lighting something on fire, and breathing it in. Smoke inhalation – what smoking is – is the term used to describe the health issue of inhaling too much smoke. Smoke of any kind is a carcinogen by nature, so it matters less what is burning, than that something is burning and inhaled. Some things are worse to breathe in than others, this is also true. Breathing in burning metal or plastic is way worse than tobacco smoke could ever be. However, having said that, processed tobacco is full of chemicals that make the whole smoking experience that must more dangerous.
In terms of how dangerous it is, according to the CDC, approximately 480,000 people die from cigarettes a year, with 41,000 of those attributed to second-hand smoke. This means over 40,000 people a year die from someone else’s bad habit. When broken down, over 160,000 deaths are from cancer, and another 160,000 are from cardiovascular diseases including heart disease, vascular disease, and diabetes. A third grouping of 113,000+ deaths are from respiratory illnesses like influenza, pneumonia, and COPD.
How does secondhand smoke actually effect people? Of the secondhand smoke deaths per year, over 7,000 are due to cancer, and another 34,000 are from heart disease. Simply sitting in the same room as a smoker causes the same deadly conditions to the secondhand consumer, as it does to the person lighting up.
Biden wants to reduce nicotine in cigarettes
It should be remembered that for many years after it was technically known that cigarettes cause dangerous health concerns, they were not only openly marketed, but with lies attached to their safety issues. And they were promoted by the likes of doctors. Though the US government likes to separate itself from its shady activities in the past, it has continually taken money from big tobacco, and for years failed to regulate the industry. Though big tobacco gives less money to congressional representatives than it did in the past, the US government still makes billions of dollars from cigarette taxes.
When it did start to regulate the industry, it changed tack on big tobacco outwardly (while still accepting its money), and began pointing the finger at the entity, while ignoring its own part in everything. But it was involved, just as much as its involved in helping to keep people on opioids by refusing to better regulate the industry; by accepting money from, and promoting policy in favor of, the pharma companies that produce them; and by downplaying better options like the use of ketamine instead. So perhaps this recent rumor from the Biden administration, should be taken with a grain of salt.
A recent report by the Wall Street Journal on the 10th of June, says that Biden wants to reduce the allowable limit of nicotine in cigarettes. The publication stated that though the US government might announce new policy this week, any policy would take several years to craft, and wouldn’t go into effect for quite some time.
The idea of the Biden administration is to reduce nicotine levels until cigarettes are no longer addictive, though how many steps this may take, what levels will be allowed, and what exact end goal there is, have not been stated. As nothing was formally announced yet, this news comes from unidentified white house sources who supposedly spoke directly with the Wall Street Journal.
What happens when nicotine is reduced in cigarettes?
Biden wants to reduce nicotine in cigarettes to make them less addictive, but can this really work? A piece of oft cited research from 2015 points to reduced nicotine cigarettes helping people smoke less and quit, but everything else from before, essentially says that reducing nicotine simply promotes the smoker to smoke more. Which statement is correct? Let’s examine the evidence.
In 2015 a study came out called Reduced Nicotine Cigarettes: Smoking Behavior and Biomarkers of Exposure among Smokers Not Intending to Quit. The aim of the study was to examined how consumer behavior changes in response to reduced nicotine cigarettes. Seventy-two adult smokers were used for the study. Participants went through a trial period where nicotine levels were gradually reduced by week. It went from 0.6 to 0.3 to 0.05mg emissions, and everyone smoked Quest cigarettes.
According to study results, there was a reduction in nicotine intake when going from 0.3 to 0.05 mg, but not when going from 0.6 to 0.3mg. According to the study, there were “no increases in exhaled breath carbon monoxide levels, smoking intensity, or levels of 1-hydroxypyrene across study periods. No significant differences were observed for smoking urges or measures of nicotine dependence.” This all indicates that reducing nicotine in cigarettes, leads to consuming less nicotine.
This study comes with a myriad of problems though. For one thing, the study lasted for three weeks, and we don’t know what happened to smoking behavior after that. People who smoke, often smoke more or less at different times, but this doesn’t indicate overall behavioral changes. Plus, the study participants were completely aware of everything, as this was not a blind study. This means they knew they were getting less and less nicotine, so their behavioral responses came with that understanding.
Last, this study was funded by an anti-smoking group (Health Canada Tobacco Control Program), has an author who was an expert witness for the FDA, and clearly states “The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.” These are massive conflicts of interest, and show a possible informational slant which can call into question the results of this study.
The other story…
Prior to this, research told a different story. In 1984 the study came out Does switching to an ultra-low nicotine cigarette induce nicotine withdrawal effects? In the study, 26 participants were randomly assigned to either a control group or an experimental group. The former group continued smoking as usual, and the latter group was switched to an ultra-low nicotine cigarette instead. Both subjective rating, and plasma nicotine concentration levels, were examined.
Results did find a substantial drop in plasma nicotine levels of 60%, but this was lower than the 90% that it should have been in accordance with the reduction in nicotine levels in the cigarettes. This shows that smokers were compensating by smoking more cigarettes, even if the total nicotine they received, was less.
Another study from 2004 shows a similar thing. In this study, Smoking cigarettes of low nicotine yield does not reduce nicotine intake as expected: a study of nicotine dependency in Japanese males, 458 Japanese men with an average age of 51, participated. A questionnaire was used, along with urine nicotine measurements. Study results showed a nearly halved decrease in urine nicotine concentration from the highest nicotine level to the lowest. However, in reality, it should have been an 11-fold difference, as the nicotine level decreased by 11X. In fact, the study investigators found that “cotinine concentration in heavily dependent smokers was consistently high regardless of the nicotine yield of brands.”
This once again indicates that lowering nicotine levels doesn’t mean smoking less, and instead points to smoking more. When looking at only nicotine decreases in plasma and urine, it’s misleading when not considering the level the nicotine decreased in cigarettes, and if they match up. This is a tactic meant to make it appear that smoking levels went down, when in fact, only nicotine went down, while smoking increased.
The two should match, and if there’s a lesser decrease of nicotine in urine or blood than the decrease of nicotine in the cigarettes, this implies the person smoked more cigarettes to get to whatever level of nicotine they achieved in between. Since the issue is really smoke inhalation, any increase in cigarettes smoked indicates a problem, and a reason for concern over increased rates of damage in the future.
What makes this more confounding, is that there already is an alternative in the form of vapes. Vaping has virtually no death toll, and isn’t associated with cancer or cardiovascular disease. It’s possible in the future we’ll find some issue associated with vaping, but as of right now, this information doesn’t exist. And it doesn’t exist regardless of nicotine content of what’s vaped. Instead of promoting vaping, the government wages fear campaigns against it, and constantly tries to block or dissuade the public from doing it, even though no direct deaths come from vaping, and all issues reported have been related to additives.
This brings up a lot of questions, like why is the government continually talking down the safer option, and instead offering weak measures that have many issues attached? And why are we still talking about nicotine or tobacco at all, when the real thing to be wary of, is smoke inhalation in general?
Conclusion
Biden might want to reduce nicotine levels in cigarettes, but the only indication from both life and research, is that this will increase the amount of cigarettes smoked. Insisting on lowering nicotine levels as a way to combat cancer, cardiovascular disease, or respiratory disease is so backwards in the first place, that expecting anything decent to come out of this, is like ignoring the massive role the government played in getting people hooked in the first place.
Welcome to the site! We appreciate you stopping byCBDtesters.co / Cannadelics.com, a top web offering for comprehensive news stories involving the cannabis and psychedelics fields. Come by frequently to stay updated on everything going on in these dynamic industries, and check out The THC Weekly Newsletter, to ensure you’re up on everything important going down.
Smoking is pretty bad, that’s for sure. So bad that the number of smoking deaths a year eclipses the number of opioid deaths, and that’s saying a lot. In a recent report, Biden stated that he wants to reduce the nicotine level in cigarettes, as a way to reduce smoking in general. Can this help though? And why is the research on this topic so conflicting?
The new thing of the Biden administration is that it wants to reduce the nicotine level allowable in cigarettes, but this seems like a strange move when vaping already provides a safer answer. This news site focuses on stories covering the expanding cannabis and psychedelics industries of today. Keep up with everything by signing up for THC Weekly Newsletter, and also get access to a range of deals on tons of products including cannabinoid compounds like HHC-O, Delta 8, Delta 9 THC, Delta-10 THC, THCO, THCV, THCP & HHC. As always, we only advice consumers purchase products they are fully comfortable using.
The damage of smoking
Smoking anything is bad. This is the first thing to really know about smoking. Though tobacco often gets a bad rap, it’s merely a plant. A plant which has been used medicinally for thousands of years, and without a huge death count. Truth is, there are plenty of substances in life which are safe to take one way, and unsafe to take in others. Mushrooms for example are eaten, but they aren’t smoked. So it’s not that weird to say tobacco doesn’t have to be bad, if not used in a bad way.
The real culprit is the act of lighting something on fire, and breathing it in. Smoke inhalation – what smoking is – is the term used to describe the health issue of inhaling too much smoke. Smoke of any kind is a carcinogen by nature, so it matters less what is burning, than that something is burning and inhaled. Some things are worse to breathe in than others, this is also true. Breathing in burning metal or plastic is way worse than tobacco smoke could ever be. However, having said that, processed tobacco is full of chemicals that make the whole smoking experience that must more dangerous.
In terms of how dangerous it is, according to the CDC, approximately 480,000 people die from cigarettes a year, with 41,000 of those attributed to second-hand smoke. This means over 40,000 people a year die from someone else’s bad habit. When broken down, over 160,000 deaths are from cancer, and another 160,000 are from cardiovascular diseases including heart disease, vascular disease, and diabetes. A third grouping of 113,000+ deaths are from respiratory illnesses like influenza, pneumonia, and COPD.
How does secondhand smoke actually effect people? Of the secondhand smoke deaths per year, over 7,000 are due to cancer, and another 34,000 are from heart disease. Simply sitting in the same room as a smoker causes the same deadly conditions to the secondhand consumer, as it does to the person lighting up.
Biden wants to reduce nicotine in cigarettes
It should be remembered that for many years after it was technically known that cigarettes cause dangerous health concerns, they were not only openly marketed, but with lies attached to their safety issues. And they were promoted by the likes of doctors. Though the US government likes to separate itself from its shady activities in the past, it has continually taken money from big tobacco, and for years failed to regulate the industry. Though big tobacco gives less money to congressional representatives than it did in the past, the US government still makes billions of dollars from cigarette taxes.
When it did start to regulate the industry, it changed tack on big tobacco outwardly (while still accepting its money), and began pointing the finger at the entity, while ignoring its own part in everything. But it was involved, just as much as its involved in helping to keep people on opioids by refusing to better regulate the industry; by accepting money from, and promoting policy in favor of, the pharma companies that produce them; and by downplaying better options like the use of ketamine instead. So perhaps this recent rumor from the Biden administration, should be taken with a grain of salt.
A recent report by the Wall Street Journal on the 10th of June, says that Biden wants to reduce the allowable limit of nicotine in cigarettes. The publication stated that though the US government might announce new policy this week, any policy would take several years to craft, and wouldn’t go into effect for quite some time.
The idea of the Biden administration is to reduce nicotine levels until cigarettes are no longer addictive, though how many steps this may take, what levels will be allowed, and what exact end goal there is, have not been stated. As nothing was formally announced yet, this news comes from unidentified white house sources who supposedly spoke directly with the Wall Street Journal.
What happens when nicotine is reduced in cigarettes?
Biden wants to reduce nicotine in cigarettes to make them less addictive, but can this really work? A piece of oft cited research from 2015 points to reduced nicotine cigarettes helping people smoke less and quit, but everything else from before, essentially says that reducing nicotine simply promotes the smoker to smoke more. Which statement is correct? Let’s examine the evidence.
In 2015 a study came out called Reduced Nicotine Cigarettes: Smoking Behavior and Biomarkers of Exposure among Smokers Not Intending to Quit. The aim of the study was to examined how consumer behavior changes in response to reduced nicotine cigarettes. Seventy-two adult smokers were used for the study. Participants went through a trial period where nicotine levels were gradually reduced by week. It went from 0.6 to 0.3 to 0.05mg emissions, and everyone smoked Quest cigarettes.
According to study results, there was a reduction in nicotine intake when going from 0.3 to 0.05 mg, but not when going from 0.6 to 0.3mg. According to the study, there were “no increases in exhaled breath carbon monoxide levels, smoking intensity, or levels of 1-hydroxypyrene across study periods. No significant differences were observed for smoking urges or measures of nicotine dependence.” This all indicates that reducing nicotine in cigarettes, leads to consuming less nicotine.
This study comes with a myriad of problems though. For one thing, the study lasted for three weeks, and we don’t know what happened to smoking behavior after that. People who smoke, often smoke more or less at different times, but this doesn’t indicate overall behavioral changes. Plus, the study participants were completely aware of everything, as this was not a blind study. This means they knew they were getting less and less nicotine, so their behavioral responses came with that understanding.
Last, this study was funded by an anti-smoking group (Health Canada Tobacco Control Program), has an author who was an expert witness for the FDA, and clearly states “The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.” These are massive conflicts of interest, and show a possible informational slant which can call into question the results of this study.
The other story…
Prior to this, research told a different story. In 1984 the study came out Does switching to an ultra-low nicotine cigarette induce nicotine withdrawal effects? In the study, 26 participants were randomly assigned to either a control group or an experimental group. The former group continued smoking as usual, and the latter group was switched to an ultra-low nicotine cigarette instead. Both subjective rating, and plasma nicotine concentration levels, were examined.
Results did find a substantial drop in plasma nicotine levels of 60%, but this was lower than the 90% that it should have been in accordance with the reduction in nicotine levels in the cigarettes. This shows that smokers were compensating by smoking more cigarettes, even if the total nicotine they received, was less.
Another study from 2004 shows a similar thing. In this study, Smoking cigarettes of low nicotine yield does not reduce nicotine intake as expected: a study of nicotine dependency in Japanese males, 458 Japanese men with an average age of 51, participated. A questionnaire was used, along with urine nicotine measurements. Study results showed a nearly halved decrease in urine nicotine concentration from the highest nicotine level to the lowest. However, in reality, it should have been an 11-fold difference, as the nicotine level decreased by 11X. In fact, the study investigators found that “cotinine concentration in heavily dependent smokers was consistently high regardless of the nicotine yield of brands.”
This once again indicates that lowering nicotine levels doesn’t mean smoking less, and instead points to smoking more. When looking at only nicotine decreases in plasma and urine, it’s misleading when not considering the level the nicotine decreased in cigarettes, and if they match up. This is a tactic meant to make it appear that smoking levels went down, when in fact, only nicotine went down, while smoking increased.
The two should match, and if there’s a lesser decrease of nicotine in urine or blood than the decrease of nicotine in the cigarettes, this implies the person smoked more cigarettes to get to whatever level of nicotine they achieved in between. Since the issue is really smoke inhalation, any increase in cigarettes smoked indicates a problem, and a reason for concern over increased rates of damage in the future.
What makes this more confounding, is that there already is an alternative in the form of vapes. Vaping has virtually no death toll, and isn’t associated with cancer or cardiovascular disease. It’s possible in the future we’ll find some issue associated with vaping, but as of right now, this information doesn’t exist. And it doesn’t exist regardless of nicotine content of what’s vaped. Instead of promoting vaping, the government wages fear campaigns against it, and constantly tries to block or dissuade the public from doing it, even though no direct deaths come from vaping, and all issues reported have been related to additives.
This brings up a lot of questions, like why is the government continually talking down the safer option, and instead offering weak measures that have many issues attached? And why are we still talking about nicotine or tobacco at all, when the real thing to be wary of, is smoke inhalation in general?
Conclusion
Biden might want to reduce nicotine levels in cigarettes, but the only indication from both life and research, is that this will increase the amount of cigarettes smoked. Insisting on lowering nicotine levels as a way to combat cancer, cardiovascular disease, or respiratory disease is so backwards in the first place, that expecting anything decent to come out of this, is like ignoring the massive role the government played in getting people hooked in the first place.
Welcome to the site! We appreciate you stopping byCBDtesters.co / Cannadelics.com, a top web offering for comprehensive news stories involving the cannabis and psychedelics fields. Come by frequently to stay updated on everything going on in these dynamic industries, and check out The THC Weekly Newsletter, to ensure you’re up on everything important going down.
The Food and Drug Administration on Thursday proposed new rules that would prohibit the sale of menthol cigarettes in the United States.
Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said that the new rules, which would also include a ban on flavored cigars, “would help prevent children from becoming the next generation of smokers and help adult smokers quit.”
“Additionally, the proposed rules represent an important step to advance health equity by significantly reducing tobacco-related health disparities,” Becerra said in a statement.
The move was made possible back in 2009, when Congress passed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act that was then signed into law by President Barack Obama.
The statute empowered the FDA to regulate tobacco products, and the regulatory body responded by imposing on a ban on virtually all flavored cigarettes.
But menthol cigarettes were exempted in that ban, due in part to opposition from the Congressional Black Caucus at the time.
As The New York Times reported Thursday, the proposed ban “would most likely have the deepest impact on Black smokers, nearly 85% of whom use menthol cigarettes, compared with 29% of white smokers.”
“The authority to adopt tobacco product standards is one of the most powerful tools Congress gave the FDA and the actions we are proposing can help significantly reduce youth initiation and increase the chances that current smokers quit. It is clear that these efforts will help save lives,” said Robert M. Califf, the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration. “Through the rulemaking process, there’s an important opportunity for the public to make their voices heard and help shape the FDA’s ongoing efforts to improve public health.”
The FDA said that, as of 2019, “there were more than 18.5 million current menthol cigarette smokers ages 12 and older in the U.S., with particularly high rates of use by youth, young adults, and African American and other racial and ethnic groups.”
“Menthol is a flavor additive with a minty taste and aroma that reduces the irritation and harshness of smoking. This increases appeal and makes menthol cigarettes easier to use, particularly for youth and young adults,” the administration explained. “Menthol also interacts with nicotine in the brain to enhance nicotine’s addictive effects. The combination of menthol’s flavor, sensory effects and interaction with nicotine in the brain increases the likelihood that youth who start using menthol cigarettes will progress to regular use. Menthol also makes it more difficult for people to quit smoking.”
The Times reported that the FDA’s exemption on menthol in 2009 “rankled public health groups and a cadre of former U.S. cabinet health secretaries, who noted the 47,000 Black lives lost each year to smoking-related disease.” Those former secretaries, The Times said, argued that keeping menthol on shelves “caves to the financial interests of tobacco companies and discriminates against African Americans.”
But the FDA made it clear last year that it would renew its efforts to ban menthol cigarettes, saying at the time that it was “working toward issuing proposed product standards within the next year to ban menthol as a characterizing flavor in cigarettes and ban all characterizing flavors (including menthol) in cigars; the authority to adopt product standards is one of the most powerful tobacco regulatory tools Congress gave the agency.”
The Times reported that White House records “show recent meetings with supporters of a ban, including the American Heart Association and American Academy of Pediatrics,” but that others, such as the Rev. Al Sharpton, remain staunchly opposed.
Sharpton, The Timessaid, “recently secured a meeting with White House officials along with King & Spalding, a lobbying firm with an extensive record of advocating for RAI Services Company, the cigarette maker formerly known as R.J. Reynolds.”
Cigarette smokers and vapers beware—a new California law could upend the state’s tobacco industry as we know it, and other states are following suit. Blaming cigarette butts piling up, the law focuses on cigarette and vape waste, rather than focusing on nicotine.
California lawmakers introduced a bill on January 25 that would ban single-use tobacco products with a goal to abate ongoing environmental issues. This affects nearly all types of cigarettes, which have single-use filters, and single-use tobacco vape products. It also targets tobacco products specifically.
Assemblymember Luz Rivas introduced Assembly Bill 1690, or the Stop Tobacco Access to Kids Enforcement Act, along with Assemblymembers Cottie Petrie-Norris and Mark Stone. Principal co-authors including Assemblymembers Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Boerner Horvath, Friedman, Lee, Nazarian, Quirk and Wicks also joined, as well as Senators Allen, Becker, Limón, Newman, Portantino and Wiener.
“This bill would prohibit a person or entity from selling, giving, or furnishing to another person of any age in this state a cigarette utilizing a single-use filter made of any material, an attachable and single-use plastic device meant to facilitate manual manipulation or filtration of a tobacco product, or a single-use electronic cigarette or vaporizer device,” the bill reads.
The bill also applies to rolling papers—but appears to apply specifically for tobacco uses.
“… the Stop Tobacco Access to Kids Enforcement Act, an enforcing agency, as defined, may assess civil penalties against any person, firm, or corporation that sells, gives, or furnishes specified tobacco and cigarette related items, including cigarette papers, to a person who is under 21 years of age, except as specified. The existing civil penalties range from $400 to $600 for a first violation, up to $5,000 to $6,000 for a 5th violation within a 5-year period.”
Fox 40 reports that the nicotine or cannabis is not necessarily the concern; instead, it’s the filters and vape pens piling up that is Assemblymember Luz Rivas’ primary battleground. “I want to be clear. This bill is not banning the sale of tobacco or marijuana in California. That’s not the goal of this bill,” said Assemblymember Luz Rivas (D-San Fernando Valley).
Thank you so much to everyone who came out in support today for the unveiling of #AB1690, our bill to ban the sale of single-use vaping devices and tobacco filters!
This is the year to ban these hazardous & wasteful single-use products to protect our health and environment. 1/5 pic.twitter.com/M0b8ilIdZ9
Deliveries of said tobacco products would also be banned. “The bill would prohibit that selling, giving, or furnishing, whether conducted directly or indirectly through an in-person transaction, or by means of any public or private method of shipment or delivery to an address in this state,” it reads.
Local law enforcement will be responsible for implementing the law, and violators could face civil penalties of $500, if passed. “This bill would authorize a city attorney, county counsel, or district attorney to assess a $500 civil fine against each person determined to have violated those prohibitions in a proceeding conducted pursuant to the procedures of the enforcing agency, as specified.”
Bill proponents said that single-use products are creating a host of environmental issues. After all, efforts in the state force public agencies to spend $41 million a year cleaning up cigarette filters, vapes and other single-use products.
“The smokers: They smoke and they toss. They risk a $1,000 fine by flicking a cigarette out of a vehicle, or throwing it on the beach, or out into the environment anywhere and that’s not a deterrent at all,” said Assemblymember Mark Stone (D- Monterey Bay).
Senator Josh Becker, who represents California’s 13th Senate District, announced on Twitter that he’s proud to support Assemblymember Rivas’ bill as a co-author.
A similar proposal is underway in New York state. The “Tobacco Product Waste Reduction Act” introduced in the New York State Legislature by New York State Senator Liz Krueger and Assemblymember Judy Griffin would ban the sales of similar single-use tobacco products.
In the upcoming months, expect more tobacco products to be introduced that work around the single-use model that we’ve all become accustomed to.
Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. But researchers think psychedelics have a unique ability to unlock patterns in the brain that lead to addiction—notably nicotine addiction.
Mydecine Innovations Group announced on August 18 it has signed a five-year research agreement with Johns Hopkins University (JHU) School of Medicine, to study the efficacy of psychedelic formulations for smoking cessation.
“We are excited to expand on the current work we are conducting with Dr. Matt Johnson and his team at JHU in regards to smoking cessation to include numerous other projects over the next five years,” Mydecine CEO Josh Bartch stated in a press release. “The researchers at JHU have proven their incredible depth of knowledge in the field.”
Research to be led by Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Dr. Matthew W. Johnson, Ph. D. While research into psychedelics for medical purposes is young, the Johns Hopkins Behavioral Pharmacology Research Unit has extensive experience conducting clinical research related to therapeutic use of psychedelics.
“The long-term potential of this research agreement is captivating for us here at Mydecine,” said Chief Scientific Officer and Co-Founder of Mydecine, Rob Roscow. “It demonstrates our commitment to advancing psychedelic medicine by exploring multiple molecules and medicines for a variety of indications.”
The researchers pointed out that it’s important not to forget the deaths caused by tobacco, despite the focus on opioid addiction lately.
“Despite the recent attention to opiate and dependence on other illicit substances, we sometimes forget about the incredible burden that nicotine dependence has on our societies,” said Dr. Rakesh Jetly, Chief Medical Officer, Mydecine. “According to the CDC, cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable disease and death in the United States, killing more than 480,000 Americans each year. Despite all the public education and dire warnings, cigarette smoking remains one of the most difficult addiction to treat and contributes to more deaths than all the other substances combined, making research like this vital.”
Smoking Tobacco vs. Smoking Cannabis
While tobacco kills nearly half a million Americans each year, the National Institute on Drug Abuse reports that cannabis generally does not lead to overdoses, despite common freak-outs out after eating edibles.
“There are no reports of teens or young adults dying from an overdose of marijuana alone,” the organization states. “But there are reports of individuals who have sought treatment in emergency rooms, reporting uncomfortable side effects after consuming high THC levels in smoked marijuana or marijuana edibles.”
Twenty minutes after quitting—your heart rate and blood pressure drop. A few days after quitting, the carbon monoxide level in your blood drops to normal. Two weeks to three months after quitting, your circulation improves and your lung function increases. One to 12 months after quitting, coughing and shortness of breath decrease.
“Tiny hair-like structures (called cilia) that move mucus out of the lungs start to regain normal function, increasing their ability to handle mucus, clean the lungs, and reduce the risk of infection,” The American Cancer Society reports. One to two years after quitting, your risk of heart attack drops dramatically.
Here’s what happens in the long-term:
Five to 10 years after quitting, your risk of cancers of the mouth, throat, and voice box is cut in half. Your stroke risk decreases. Ten years after quitting, your risk of lung cancer is about half that of a person who is still smoking (after 10-15 years). Your risk of cancer of the bladder, esophagus, and kidney also decreases. Fifteen years after quitting, your risk of coronary heart disease is close to that of a non-smoker.
