Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why cigarette packs matter

badscience.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–38 of 38 posts

Re: Why cigarette packs matter

#31

Post by Lost_BiomedE »

Groxx wrote: post #25
splat wrote: post #14

The thing I find interesting is the FDA's blatant hostility towards electronic cigarettes despite their demonstrated health benefits over ordinary cigarettes (light or otherwise). [1] [2] Electronic cigarettes simply vaporize nicotine and deliver the nicotine straight to the user with at most trace amounts of tar and carcinogens. A number of studies and at least one meta-study [3] have all found that electronic cigar…

There's definite unfounded, likely highly-funded, hostility towards them. There is a single legitimate cause for concern that I've heard them occasionally mention, however: there haven't been any / many health studies on inhaling nicotine , and what it does to your lungs. Only smoking things which contain it. It's essentially an unknown, so there's definite reason for pause before they approve it... but yes, phenomen…

There has been a lot of studies confirming the safety of snus, and they are just as hostile to it as anything. I don't think they would change their tune even if there were plenty of studies.

Re: Why cigarette packs matter

#32

Post by Misha_B »

ugh wrote: post #7
defroost wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man, you would think that almost ghoulish imagery in the URL you posted would keep people from buying cigarettes, but I imagine people still buy them in droves nonetheless. I like that at least the Australian government doesn't cave to the Tobacco companies.

Addiction’s a bitch. I don’t smoke but I tend to eat too much with predictable consequences I know full well about. It is possible for me to keep my eating in control (I have for nearly six months now and am very proud of that) but that demands tons of strong, strong, strong willpower. It’s exhausting and I will have to keep that will strong for the rest of my life.

A bit offtopic but overeating depends a lot on types of food you consume. Removing hunger inflicting components from your diet may make not overeating a matter of habit rather than of willpower.

May have a look here: http://www.paleonu.com/get-started/

Has been helpful for me.

Re: Why cigarette packs matter

#33

Post by pokjhnboi »

I assume the same thing is going to happen to the other social drug of choice?

All those enticing pictures of Chateaus are going to be replaced by a plain white bottle and a picture of a car crash caused by drunk driver?

Re: Why cigarette packs matter

#34

Post by ugh »

Misha_B wrote: post #32
ugh wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Addiction’s a bitch. I don’t smoke but I tend to eat too much with predictable consequences I know full well about. It is possible for me to keep my eating in control (I have for nearly six months now and am very proud of that) but that demands tons of strong, strong, strong willpower. It’s exhausting and I will have to keep that will strong for the rest of my life.

A bit offtopic but overeating depends a lot on types of food you consume. Removing hunger inflicting components from your diet may make not overeating a matter of habit rather than of willpower. May have a look here: http://www.paleonu.com/get-started/ Has been helpful for me.

Changing my diet helps a bit. (It keeps my weight more or less constant if I’m really strict about it. At the moment I still want to lose weight, though.) But since I do actually love eating pasta changing my diet in such a way also requires a lot of constant willpower. I don’t see a lot of difference to plain old calorie counting. I try to do both, though – eat healthier and different things (with the occasional pasta day to keep me happy) and count calories.

Counting calories and constant monitoring (for rewards) are the two cornerstones of my current weight loss (and it works) but I very much try to sneak a better diet in and I also really should start doing more sports.

Re: Why cigarette packs matter

#35

Post by JulianMorrison »

splat wrote: post #14

The thing I find interesting is the FDA's blatant hostility towards electronic cigarettes despite their demonstrated health benefits over ordinary cigarettes (light or otherwise). [1] [2] Electronic cigarettes simply vaporize nicotine and deliver the nicotine straight to the user with at most trace amounts of tar and carcinogens. A number of studies and at least one meta-study [3] have all found that electronic cigar…

If they were as hostile to all tobacco/nicotine products as they deserved, then for whatever value of illegal heroin is, tobacco/nicotine should be about equally illegal.

Cigarettes, cigars and pipes got grandfathered in. Gum and patches are medical. But I suspect their reflexive "no drugs for fun" attitude is applying to anything else.

Re: Why cigarette packs matter

#36

Post by JulianMorrison »

I propose: that by law every one in a thousand cigarettes sold should have something that tastes and smells really spit-and-gag foul (but isn't poisonous) inserted at a random point (not just at the tip, or the end, but unpredictably). Light, mild, silver, one brand or another - there is no difference. You have a chance of running into the disincentive whichever you choose.

Re: Why cigarette packs matter

#37

Post by [deleted] »

handelaar wrote: post #23

So use of lighter colours and white packaging a la Marlboro 'Lights', as they were known here until recently, is taken objectively to be a Bad Thing. Why isn't anybody asking, then, on what grounds we think that replacing all cigarette packaging with plain white boxes wouldn't make things worse ?

[deleted]

Re: Why cigarette packs matter

#38

Post by hammock »

splat wrote: post #14

The thing I find interesting is the FDA's blatant hostility towards electronic cigarettes despite their demonstrated health benefits over ordinary cigarettes (light or otherwise). [1] [2] Electronic cigarettes simply vaporize nicotine and deliver the nicotine straight to the user with at most trace amounts of tar and carcinogens. A number of studies and at least one meta-study [3] have all found that electronic cigar…

If you wonder whether the FDA is in bed with Big Tobacco or not look no further than the landmark, but largely ignored, FDA Tobacco Bill passed in June 2009.

This bill was reported in the media as an anti-smoking bill, but believe it or not, it is a pro-Big Tobacco bill. What this bill does is grandfather in the major cigarette manufacturers and protect them from all future lawsuits, since their cigarettes are now "approved by the FDA." Meanwhile, it puts up huge barriers to entry for any other competing companies, thereby guaranteeing government-supported oligopolistic profits for 100 years to come - the alternative of course is to not pass this bill, and instead watch the tobacco companies slowly die into oblivion, as they have been for the past twenty years. Instead, we are propping them up.

This bill is unnecessary, does not punish tobacco companies, and gives the FDA powers that it should never have. This bill has been a long time coming, though, and had a lot of support in both houses of Congress before passage.

Read this editorial, it is short and very informative if you really want to know what this bill is all about.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120882121714933013.html

Post reply on HN