American doctors have repeatedly suggested a methodical implementation of reduced-nicotine cigarettes as a way of taking care of people who are heavy smokers and calculated that a legal restriction of only 0.3 to 0.4 mg for every cigarette could avoid or eliminated this unhealthy habit.
Such low nicotine products would be essentially different from the previous “light” cigarettes, because the tobacco would have very little nicotine and cigarette users could not extract enough of it no matter how these are smoked. Opposed to them, “light” cigarettes created and promoted by the tobacco industry had design options for which users could make up (for example covering their airflow holes) to inhale more nicotine.
The nicotine-reduction idea was aimed to both avoid the growth of cigarette dependence among adolescents and help current smokers to get rid of this unhealthy habit. Its assumption, reinforced by significant analysis, was that cigarette users would not choose low-nicotine products in the long run. The suggested decrease was to occur progressively, in order to reduce the problems of drawback in present cigarette users.
Recent analysis, however, indicates that a lengthy abstinence period may be needless. In addition, experts found further proof that if other flammable cigarettes are available, smokers want to use them instead of low-nicotine items. The nicotine-reduction strategy would possibly have to include all kinds of flammable cigarettes.
Decreasing the nicotine percentage of flammable cigarettes is not without its problems. For example, smokers who are already dependent on traditional cigarettes could make up for less nicotine by smoking more tobacco or smoking more intensively. This settlement could increase users’ contact with the dangerous toxicants of flammable cigarettes, such as tar, monoxides and other harmful toxins. However, tests tend to present only moderate compensation as a reaction to a decrease in nicotine consumption.
In addition, if the total amount of tobacco is reduced, dependent upon tobacco users might select other nicotine-fueled items, such as smokeless-tobacco alternatives and electronic nicotine systems, like e-cigarettes, e-pipes and e-cigars. Such a move might provide an overall health advantage to the level where such items are less dangerous than flammable cigarettes, but their usage might also maintain smoking cigarette dependence, motivating the ongoing use of lower-nicotine cigarettes. Specialists still do not know how frequent such continual “dual use” could become nor can they estimate its health repercussions.
Finally, the creation of new items (like FDA-approved agents that securely and successfully provide smoking cigarettes without any additional risks) might further speed up a decrease in combustible-item use and improve the risk–advantage rate. The current studies conducted by US health specialists contributes to a growing body of evidence assisting the practicality and potential advantages of the nationwide nicotine-reduction plans.
This strategy, in their view, might help to end the majority of harmful health repercussions of combustible-tobacco consumption. Overall, the new airports efforts of the medical community will how their results after a few years, if not decades. These studies come after an increase in cancer death rate across all regions of the United States.
Image source: Hngn.com