US government to reduce nicotine levels

The US government intends to reduce nicotine levels in commercial tobacco. The Biden administration claims it is for public health and safety, but the unintended consequences of such a decision are obvious. Canada has a similar cap on how much THC you can put in an edible cannabis product. This policy provides insight into the unintended consequences of limits.

Nicotine: Health Benefits

The US government’s intention to reduce nicotine levels in cigarettes appears to be an ideological position. Nicotine is the least harmful part of tobacco. In its pure form, nicotine is a nootropic and is arguably beneficial for brain function. Studies confirm that nicotine lowers the risk of Alzheimer’s and reduces the risk of dementia. This is because nicotine appears to inhibit the formation of amyloid plaques in brain cells.

And as any cigarette smoker can attest, nicotine improves your focus.

Studies also show that pure, isolated nicotine has a neutral effect on our health. The health consequences of smoking—inflammation, cancer, and cardiovascular disease—come from smoking the tobacco plant. As well as the pesticides used in the cultivation process, the chemicals added during cigarette manufacture and the microplastics in the filters.

Not only is nicotine harmless, but there are cognitive benefits to consuming it.

Unintended consequences of lower nicotine levels

Nicotine is addictive, but so is the ritual of smoking. What will happen if the US government enforces lower nicotine levels in commercial tobacco? Will people smoke less? Or will they smoke more to get the same amount of nicotine they are used to?

People will smoke more when it takes more tobacco to get the same amount of nicotine. A healthier alternative would be to force tobacco companies to increase their nicotine levels. Thus, a person could get their nicotine fix before they’ve even finished the entire cigarette.

The US Food and Drug Administration claims that lower nicotine levels make cigarettes “minimally addictive or non-addictive,” but that’s nonsensical. The incense ritual is part of the habit. Opening the packet, lighting the stick and inhaling the first puff has a certain mediating quality. Lower nicotine levels will not break the ritual or help people quit. It will only cause them to inhale more carcinogens while getting less of the only healthy part of smoking – the nicotine.

Lower nicotine level, same as Canada’s THC cap

Lower nicotine levels cause people to smoke more, as Canada’s THC cap on edible cannabis has its own unintended consequences.

Canada’s THC limit for edibles is 10 mg per serving. Canadians who need or want stronger edibles must either make their own or stick to the old market. Otherwise, you’re spending more than $50 a day for just 50mg. Likewise, with the amount of refined sugar one would need to consume to get above 50mg of THC, blood sugar will rise to unnatural levels.

The real victims of Canada’s THC cap are the medical patients. This was evident in the arrest of cannabis activist Neil Magnuson and the raid on the Cannabis Substitution Project. The project aims to transition hard drug users from things like opioids and meth to cannabis.

Selling edibles in excess of the THC limit is illegal, which is why police raided the project last month. However, with Canada’s courts requiring fair access to medicinal cannabis, it has to be argued that the THC caps are unconstitutional.

Lower nicotine levels for better health?

The FDA predicts that lower nicotine levels will save over 8 million lives by the end of the century. They funded a study to provide data to support these conclusions. But if the last two and a half years were any indication, the public health models aren’t worth the trouble. The FDA says that if the nicotine limit had been the law in 2020, another 5 million adults would have quit smoking.

dr John Ioannidis, a professor at Stanford University, is critical of this type of research. In his article “Why Most Published Research Findings are False,” he explains that “research findings are often simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.”

This is undoubtedly the case here. The definition of institutional bias is that the FDA is funding their own study to arrive at conclusions that support their lower nicotine policy.