Study Finds Fewer Cannabis Consumers View Cigarette Use as Harmful

A new study, entitled “Everything old is new again: Creating and maintaining a population-level ‘shared reality’ of health risks associated with cigarette use toward both reducing the prevalence and eliminating disparities in cigarette use among all Americans,” was released in the journal Nicotine & Tobacco Research. Research was led by Dr. Renee Goodwin, a CUNY Graduate School of Public Health & Health Policy professor, and also adjunct professor at Columbia Mailman School of Public Health in New York.

Goodwin explained in a press release that more questions are always being developed as cannabis legalization expands across the United States. “Tobacco control has done a tremendous job in public education on the physical health risks associated with tobacco use, and cigarette smoking in particular, over the past several decades,” Goodwin said.

In this most recent study, researchers analyzed data pulled from the 2020 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. “Participants’ responses to a question asking how much people risk harming themselves physically and in other ways by smoking one or more packs of cigarettes per day were compared between those who use cannabis daily and those who did not use cannabis in the past year,” a press release explained. “Sixty-two percent of adults who use cannabis daily perceived pack a day cigarette use to be of ‘great’ risk to health, compared with 73% of those who did not use cannabis in the past year.”

Previous studies Goodwin has conducted show evidence that cigarette use is more common in consumers who also use cannabis. “We wondered why that might be,” Goodwin said. “Our findings suggest that diminished risk perception of pack a day cigarette use might be one contributing factor.”

“Most Americans who use cigarettes have at least one mental health or substance use issue considered a barrier to smoking cessation and sustained abstinence from cigarette use. Based on our analysis of 2020 nationally representative data from the National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH)…” the study manuscript states. “…51.7% of Americans ages 12 and older who reported past 30-day cigarette use met criteria for at least one of the following: serious psychological distress, major depressive episode, heavy alcohol use or daily cannabis use…”

Goodwin recently spoke at a public hearing in New York on the topic of Introductory Resolution 1417, which was proposed by Legislator Kara Hahn of Suffolk County and would ban cannabis packaging that appeals to children. Goodwin explained that studies in Canada, through some of her peers, suggest that cannabis legalization hasn’t led to increase in consumption by minors. “Data from Canada suggests that plain packaging is one measure that can maximize the safe and effective rollout of cannabis legalization and protect the health, safety and wellbeing of all members of our community, including those most vulnerable: children,” Goodwin said at the hearing.

“Enacting legislation on the local and state level that reduces the appeal of cannabis products to youth vis-à-vis prohibiting product packaging that mimics foods and candies that are traditionally marketed to children (e.g., pop-tarts, Oreos) may reduce potential unintended harms to the most vulnerable members of our community via accidental ingestion/poisonings, which have exploded in number in recent years in the U.S., with child and adolescent intentional use of these products,” Goodwin said, according to an interview with Columbia Mailman School of Public Health.

Cigarette consumption has been known to cause many harmful side effects. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states that more than 480,000 people die from tobacco-related deaths every year, which includes those exposed to second-hand smoking. But cannabis legalization has definitely played a part in reducing cigarette and e-cigarette consumption. A poll in 2019 found that many Americans believe e-cigarettes are more dangerous than cannabis. The EVALI vape crisis of late 2019 and early 2020, which led to 2,807 hospitalizations or deaths, also led to increased restrictions and testing requirements for e-cigarettes.

The post Study Finds Fewer Cannabis Consumers View Cigarette Use as Harmful appeared first on High Times.

New York Gov. Signs Smoking Ban in State-Owned Beaches, Parks

New Yorkers hoping to enjoy a smoke or a toke in one of the state’s beaches or parks might want to think twice.

Kathy Hochul, the state’s Democratic governor, signed a bill into law last month that will prohibit “smoking in all state-owned beaches, boardwalks, marinas, playgrounds, recreation centers, and group camps.” 

Those caught smoking in such areas could face a fine of $50.

“Smoking is a dangerous habit that affects not only the smoker but everyone around them, including families and children enjoying our state’s great public places,” Hochul said in a statement following the bill signing last month. “I’m proud to sign this legislation that will protect New Yorkers’ health and help reduce litter in public parks and beaches across the state.”

The new law applies to both tobacco and cannabis.

Recreational pot use has been legal in the Empire State since last year, when former Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed legislation.

The law permitted cannabis use wherever tobacco use is also permitted.

The bill signed into law last month “exempts the Adirondacks and Catskills from the [smoking] ban as well as parking lots, sidewalks adjoining parks, and areas not used for park purposes,” according to the governor’s office.

“Many municipalities and local governments already have restrictions or bans on smoking in public spaces. This additional penalty will enforce a statewide prohibition and includes a fine that will be collected by localities,” Hochul’s office explained in the press release issued last month. “In addition to the health risks posed by secondhand smoke, cigarette butts are a major environmental hazard due to the non-biodegradable filters that are discarded. They are the leading item found during cleanup projects. Through this prohibition, parks and beaches will be kept cleaner and safer as will our local ecosystems.”

The law was celebrated by several New York lawmakers.

“New York’s public parks are family friendly venues. No one, especially children, should be subjected to secondhand smoke while playing on a playground or enjoying the day at a public beach or camp site,” said Democratic state Sen. Toby Ann Stavisky. “Our parks also shouldn’t be tainted by non-biodegradable cigarette butts scattered throughout their grounds. I am proud to sponsor this legislation to protect and improve our beautiful network of parks and I thank Governor Hochul for helping New Yorkers enjoy the beauty of our parks by signing it into law.”

Fellow Democrat Jeffrey Dinowitz, a member of the New York State Assembly, said the law honors the spirit of public greenspace.

“New Yorkers head to our parks for fresh air and to foster a healthy lifestyle. Smoking is the opposite of that. I am very pleased the Governor Hochul has signed into law this important statewide ban on smoking in parks, and thank you to my colleagues for their vital support on this bill over the years,” Dinowitz said last month.

While New Yorkers aged 21 and older have been able to legally possess and use cannabis since last year, the state’s regulated weed market isn’t expected to launch until later this year.

Hochul took over as governor last summer after Cuomo resigned amid allegations of sexual misconduct, and she has taken a proactive role in shaping the state’s nascent legal cannabis industry ever since.

Last month, Hochul announced a $5 million grant in support of cannabis industry job training at New York community colleges.

“New York’s new cannabis industry is creating exciting opportunities, and we will ensure that New Yorkers who want careers in this growing sector have the quality training they need to be successful,” Hochul said in the announcement of the funding. “Diversity and inclusion are what makes New York’s workforce a competitive, powerful asset, and we will continue to take concrete steps to help ensure everyone has the opportunity to participate in the cannabis industry.”

The post New York Gov. Signs Smoking Ban in State-Owned Beaches, Parks appeared first on High Times.

Say Ta-ta to Tar With the CastAway Pipe

Smoking cannabis has been one of the most popular consumption methods for millennia. And for good reason; when smoked, the effects and efficacies are instantaneous, which is what many medical cannabis patients need from their medicine. However, it’s no secret that smoking anything is not the healthiest option—and that includes cannabis. That’s why CleanBuzz Technologies developed the CastAway Pipe System that eliminates tar and carcinogenic particulates from smoke, so you get a fresh, clean experience with every draw.

A Cool, Clean Buzz

CleanBuzz Technologies is on a mission to make smoking cannabis safer for everyone—especially medicinal patients, who face the conundrum of needing the full potency of flower for pain management but also fewer carcinogens in their lungs.

By utilising patent-pending, first-of-its-kind technology, the CastAway pipe is a basic two-piece design constructed of anodized aluminum that includes the bowl inclosure and a screw-on stem. The bowl liner has a large enough capacity to hold up to 0.3 grammes of herbs. The pipe achieves full flower potency with less tar and plant matter reaching your lungs in three ways:

  1. Improved Taste and Flavors: The flavour and purity of your herb are degraded by tar buildup in a dirty pipe. For superior flavour, a clean pipe is essential. CastAway liners reduce tar buildup in the bowl, making every draw delicious.
  2. Reduced Tar and Carcinogens: Removing the tar from your pipe bowl improves the flavour of your flower while also lowering the risk of carcinogenic fumes. No more clogged pipe bowls—and better flavour and safety.
  3. Simple Pipe Cleaning: Cleaning a cannabis pipe has always been a sticky, stinky, and unpleasant task. But not anymore! Simply remove the used bowl liner, along with all the nasty tar and residue trapped inside. Replace the old liner with a freshie and you’re ready to go.

How the CastAway Pipe Works

Liners: Clean versus dirty.

The CastAway Pipe traps messy and unhealthy particles in a proprietary disposable bowl liner called Trap the Crap where a 60-mesh screen offers the initial level of filtration before the smoke travels down into the ceramic trapping beads for the second stage. When smoke passes through this chamber, tar condenses onto the surfaces of the beads, trapping carcinogenic particles before the cooled smoke flows into the pipe stem—and then on to you.

When medicinal patients put the CastAway’s pipe liners to the test using high-potency flower, up to 300mg of tar and matter was removed from each gram of flower smoked. The patients also reported full potency of their flower and less congestion in their lungs.

Additionally, the full flavour of your cannabis is preserved so you can still taste those terps!

How to Clean the CastAway Pipe

Thanks to the disposable liners, cleaning the CastAway pipe is a breeze! 

After using the pipe 15 to 20 times, or when you notice harsher hits, simply remove the used liner out of the pipe, wipe the pipe bowl clean and drop in a fresh new liner. Voila — a like-new pipe in under a minute with no messy residue removal. This easy pipe-cleaning solution means no more sticky or smelly residue on your pipe and fingers!

Developed As An Alternative to Vaping

CleanBuzz’s cutting-edge technology was created to address the key flaws and concerns associated with vaping, such as potency loss due to the extraction process and the possibility of being exposed to hot metal ions, which can be detrimental to the lungs.

Similar to vaping, this innovative smoking technology eliminates tars and particles and overcomes the lack of efficacy experienced by medicinal patients who vape. Additionally, there are no metal ions in the lungs now that the hot wires have been removed.

The CastAway pipe is the first product to use this revolutionary smoking-technology paradigm for the flower smoking market, with full potency, reduced tar and easy cleanup. The pipe is nearly indestructible, portable, and proudly manufactured in the United States.

You wouldn’t drink expensive wine from a dirty glass, so why would you smoke cannabis from a dirty pipe? The CastAway pipe will elevate your experience, every time.

The post Say Ta-ta to Tar With the CastAway Pipe appeared first on Cannabis Now.

Biden Wants to Reduce Nicotine in Cigarettes – Will This Help?

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 8Delta 9 THCDelta-10 THCTHCOTHCVTHCP 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 by CBDtesters.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 post Biden Wants to Reduce Nicotine in Cigarettes – Will This Help? appeared first on CBD Testers.

Biden Wants to Reduce Nicotine in Cigarettes – Will This Help?

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 8Delta 9 THCDelta-10 THCTHCOTHCVTHCP 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 by CBDtesters.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 post Biden Wants to Reduce Nicotine in Cigarettes – Will This Help? appeared first on CBD Testers.

Cannabis Consumption Friendly Hotel Coming to Las Vegas

At long last, it’s finally happening. Smoking weed on vacation without fear is finally becoming a thing and it’s coming to Las Vegas! Thanks to a recent change in legislation, businesses can now apply for a commercial cannabis consumption lounge license. After hearing this news, Pro Hospitality Group jumped into action and bought property on […]

The post Cannabis Consumption Friendly Hotel Coming to Las Vegas appeared first on Cannabis News, Lifestyle – Headlines, Videos & Cooking.

California Bill Would Ban Single-Use Filtered Cigarettes and Tobacco Vapes

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).

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.

The post California Bill Would Ban Single-Use Filtered Cigarettes and Tobacco Vapes appeared first on High Times.

Laser Bong Review – The Hitoki Trident V2

If George Jetson smoked weed, his bong might look something like a Hitoki Trident V2; it’s a laser bong, for real. The Hitoki Trident V2 is an all-in-one device that takes the cannabis experience to another level. It’s an investment piece. As a medical user, cannabis is critical for my health, thus, sometimes I need […]

The post Laser Bong Review – The Hitoki Trident V2 appeared first on Latest Cannabis News Today – Headlines, Videos & Stocks.

Pair of Cops Booked After Being Caught Smoking Pot in Mississippi

According to a Flowood Police Department news release, which was posted on Facebook, two rookie police officers from the Jackson County Police Department in Mississippi were charged with possession of cannabis and paraphernalia after being caught smoking weed, in the act. The Clarion Ledger first reported the arrests of the two officers—both of whom just finished police academy.

Kenya Shardae McCarty and Darius Jamal Short were off-duty at the time, relaxing and puffing by a pond, minding their own business, when they were spotted and approached by officers from another division. 

Officers with the Flowood Police Department in Mississippi responded to reports of two people smoking weed at the Nature Trail Park at about 5:45 p.m. on December 17. Flowood’s Park Trail includes an elevated walkway—the perfect place to toke. 

Instead of letting the fellow cops off, the Flowood Police officers arrested and booked them. The two cops were charged with possession of cannabis and an open container violation, Flowood Police officials said, and they were given a court date for the charges. The officers were also in possession of two firearms, which is not unusual for an off-duty police officer.

“On December 17, 2021 officers were dispatched to the Nature Trail Park of Flowood in reference to individuals smoking marijuana,” the news release reads. “Officers arrived and located two subjects inside the park near the pond. The subjects were identified as Darius Jamal Short B/M and Kenya Shardae McCarty B/F. The officers located a small amount of marijuana on a bench where the two were seated. Officers also took possession of a firearm which was present on the table.”

The release continues, “A second firearm was also recovered along with open containers and marijuana paraphernalia. The subjects were transported to headquarters for booking on the charges of Possession of Marijuana and Open Container Violation. The subjects were given a court date for above charges. These two individuals are recent graduates of the Jackson Police Academy and are currently employed by the Jackson Police Department.”

Meanwhile—Flowood Police Department is being sued by a man who said they sicced a K9 on him three times, in a separate incident a few years ago. That case escalated to a $5 million federal lawsuit.

“Such a waste of resources,” the top comment on the Facebook post reads. “Legalize weed, let them go, and move on.”

Per Mississippi law, possession of 30 or less grams of cannabis is punishable by up to three years of imprisonment and a fine of up to $3,000.  

Instead of reprimanding them, Jackson Police Department Chief James Davis defended the behavior of his officers, explaining that they were off-duty at the time. Davis did not confirm whether the police officers were placed on administrative leave or are subject to any other type of punishment beyond the Flowood Police charges. “If an officer did something off duty, that’s their personal life,” he said

The maximum penalty for a first-time offender in possession of 30 grams or less of cannabis in Mississippi is a maximum $250 fine, Whitt Law Firm explains. Anything above 30 grams is a different story, however, and is elevated to a felony.

Possession of up to 250 grams is punishable by one to three years in jail and a $1,000 fine, while five kilograms or more of cannabis can result in a maximum penalty of 10 to 30 years in prison and a $1 million fine, according to the NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws).

Lots of cops are smoking or selling pot around the country, and occasionally they get caught. A Cincinnati police dispatcher in Ohio was one of six people arrested for hundreds of pounds of pot in 2017. The next year a patrol officer with the Paterson Police Department in New Jersey was caught selling pot and many other drugs to an undercover federal informant.

The post Pair of Cops Booked After Being Caught Smoking Pot in Mississippi appeared first on High Times.

Where Did the Term Puff, Puff, Pass Come From?

The first time I smoked cannabis, I was at a party and someone passed it to me. My boyfriend at the time leaned over and whispered “The rule is puff, puff, pass, you take two puffs and then you pass it.” I appreciated knowing the rules of etiquette, and appreciated the generous sharing even more. I never thought puff, puff, pass etiquette would become so complicated. But years later, as a long time medical cannabis patient, my views on the culture of Puff, Puff, Pass have become much more nuanced.

To be fair the term puff, puff, pass is not universal, in the ’60s and ’70s the rule was to not “bogart” the weed. One patient shared with me that she grew up with “Puff, Pass” and so was confused in college when her friends took two puffs before passing. The rule is slightly different in different times and places. Still, what carries through all these rules is the expectation of sharing in relatively equal portions. So what are the pros and cons of this implied social norm?

On one hand, the culture of sharing is a beautiful aspect of the cannabis using community. We like to share, and to do it in a fair and orderly manner. When people smoke together they bond. Some of the most unexpected groups of people come together over cannabis and a lot of that happens in circles of smokers, happily passing their joints.

But this cultural habit is not without its problems. One of the biggest issues is the transmission of germs. Sharing joints, pipes, e-cigs and anything else that you put your mouth against is a pretty personal act. Like kissing, it might bring you closer together, but it will also swap the germs in your mouths. Unfortunately we are likely puff, puff, passing any illnesses around the circle with our joints and pipes; putting ourselves and others at risk for anything from the flu to oral HPV. Even for healthy people, much less for patients with compromised immune systems, this can be a dangerous way to socialize.

The norm can also backfire against patients who need to use large amounts of cannabis to manage their condition. These patients are usually already pressed financially by their high cannabis bill, but need to be able to medicate throughout the day. If they are in a social situation with other cannabis users, they may feel pressured to share. Their five joints may seem like an incredible abundance to those around them, but when split between a few people will leave them in pain and under medicated. Those who need more, sometimes are pressured to share more, and can bear the financial burden of the sharing culture.

Not sharing is an option, but the social norm to share is often palpable and can bring negative social consequences. I’ve gotten glares and raised eyebrows, or annoyed comments when I’ve tried this in the past. At a recent wedding, as one of the few people who had brought any cannabis, I was surprised at how many people seemed to feel entitled to my joints. I was happy to share, and did so often, but I am also a chronic pain patient and didn’t feel like I should have to share my joint every time I needed to medicate. Still I got irritated comments from several friends and new acquaintances. “Are you gonna pass that to me before it’s out?” one person burst out with indignantly, as an unshared joint neared its end. I had shared with him earlier and now he seemed to think my cannabis was community property.

Other patients have shared similar stories about pressure to share. “If I roll it, it’s a big bummer,” one patient told me. “You just don’t know what everybody else’s etiquette is.” Because of this, some end up removing themselves from the social context in order to medicate, pushing them further away from other people, rather than closer together.

Ultimately, some kind of middle ground may be best. Puff, puff, pass is a beautiful thing but it can’t apply in every situation. I would never want to give up those circles of people smoking and sharing, but maybe we should all start bringing personal joint holders to the circle. If someone’s feeling sick or worried about getting sick, maybe they should smoke on a personal joint. Either way, the foundation of puff, puff, pass is generosity. Look for hygienic ways to share with others and if you notice someone bogarting their own joint, just remember that they may have a good reason for it.

The post Where Did the Term Puff, Puff, Pass Come From? appeared first on Cannabis Now.