It will be up to the returning Trump administration to decide whether to finalize the rule.
    • Droggelbecher@lemmy.worldEnglish
      142·
      16 hours ago

      Maybe it’ll make more people choose smokeless tobacco, which is nowhere near as (but still quite) unhealthy?

      But yeah this seems paradoxical, nicotine is the least of your worries if you smoke cigarettes.

      • HikingVet@lemmy.caEnglish
        172·
        15 hours ago

        Nicotine is the chemical that gets you hooked and there is a reason birds in cities have been observed using them to line their nests to protect against mites.

        • ch00f@lemmy.worldEnglish
          4·
          9 hours ago

          I mean not the best argument against nicotine, plants make all kinds of wacky stuff to deter pests that we eat up. Capsaicin, caffeine, etc.

    • can@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      57·
      11 hours ago

      Now people will just smoke more

      Edit: after considering the level of reduction I agree with the other commenter who said existing smokers will turn to vaping or pouches.

      Also, I browse all mostly and didn’t catch the community. I sorry for bringing bad energy here.

      • Mayor Poopington@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        15 hours ago

        That’s an odd take. Personally, I love nicotine but I rarely smoke because of the health problems. No point in smoking if there’s no nicotine.

        • CetaceanNeeded@lemmy.worldEnglish
          4·
          13 hours ago

          Because people who are addicted go for the same hit of nicotine each time, therefore if there is less nicotine in each cigarette they will have to smoke more cigarettes to get their usual hit.

          • Mayor Poopington@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            12 hours ago

            We’re talking ~95% drop in nicotine. You’d have to smoke 20 cigarettes in the same amount of time to get the same effect. With the price of smokes these days, no smoke options are going to look a lot more attractive.

        • can@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          2·
          13 hours ago

          I mean existing smokers will be more likely to have another since one didn’t give them their usual fix.

            • can@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              3·
              10 hours ago

              I may have glossed over the numbers. My bad. That’s quite the difference. Those who are already addicted are likely to find it elsewhere.

              Edit:

  • Moobythegoldensock@lemm.eeEnglish
    101·
    14 hours ago

    Thank goodness. It’s about time the Republicans did something good and had to deal with the political fallout instead of relying on Democrats to do everything.

  • ditty@lemm.eeEnglish
    15·
    17 hours ago

    Tobacco companies will need to cut nicotine levels to 0.7 milligrams per gram of tobacco, a fraction of the 17.2 milligrams per gram that most cigarette brands have on average.

    Damn, that might actually get most smokers to switch to vaping chaw or zyn

    • misk@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      6·
      15 hours ago

      That number doesn’t look right. EU caps it at 1.0 and I’ve never seen a cigarette over 0.8 and those are noticeably rougher than 0.6 which is standard. 17,2 would be crazy even for the US sized portions of things. Haven’t smoked in years but it couldn’t have changed this way.

      • ditty@lemm.eeEnglish
        4·
        15 hours ago

        This site suggests the average cigarette has between 10-12 milligrams of Nicotine, but that the human body only absorbs ~1.2-1.8mg per cigarette smoked

        • misk@sopuli.xyzEnglish
          4·
          13 hours ago

          I found the same but it’s an order of magnitude difference. My hypothesis is that it could be some metric/imperial conversion error that’s being parroted by multiple websites that didn’t spot it because that would require a point of reference.