Washington File

Stephen in Winnipeg. So I make my own beer and drink maybe an average of 2 a week. Please tell me what harm I am doing to my body? Since its not filtered I am getting a good source of Vit B. It is perfectly possible to drink booze without it having any negative impact.

Stephen from Winnepeg, how can you say prohibition of addictive substances not working is unfounded? (that IS what we're talking about isn't it?) It sure as heck didn't work with alchohol, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, crystal meth, etc, etc... I don't think your example of arsenic applies, as you mentioned it's not addictive, and there were probably safer alternatives.

It would be great if everybody stopped smoking, but I'll repeat, prohibition does not work!

To Steve L in Winnipeg...I am not disagreeing with the science behind your arguement except perhaps for calling nicotine a poison...I am not sure if its truly a poison...anyways, its addictive, yes, that is clear.

What I am disagreeing with is your comment that no one should be allowed to drink or smoke. To do this, one would have to pass legislation to make them illegal. As our history has shown us, it won't work. We have tried to illeminate pot smoking for more than a century through criminalization. The Americans have been waging a minor war in parts of South America, and Central and SouthEast Asia, yet heroin and cocaine are still readily available to those who know how to find it. I don't think I need to get into detail about prohibition.

I am not saying these drugs are harmless, I am not condoning their use, I am merely saying that criminalizing them creates much larger problems (lack of control in dosage, increase in organized crime, stigma against users leading poor health access to name a few...) without necessarily decreasing their usage.

If as the medical authorities tell us that it's the smoke that is harmful and not the nicotine itself, it should actually be good news that smokers are getting their fix with less cigarettes, wouldn't you think? I don't think the 10% or 15% difference in nicotine levels will make it or break it for someone that has really decided to quit, and by smoking less cigarettes the psychological addiction should also be easier to break.
And what if it was not Big Tobacco manipulating the nicotine levels and it was Big Pharma manipulating the studies in order to give them reason to raise the nicotine level of their nicotine replacement therapies and thus get people hooked on THEIR product instead?
It wouldn't be the first study they would be manipulating. I trust Big Pharma even less than I trust Big Tobacco and that's sad!

Useless. This may sound like complete idealism and wishful thinking, but the tobacco industry shouldn't exist in the first place. The taxing of cigarettes isn't a blessing: in fact, it's almost like a contract killer's money.

As it regards Steve in Halifax, saying that prohibition doesn't work is unfounded and characterizes the exact type of mentality that makes it less and less likely that the industries mentioned in the posts will ever be halted (with the obvious exception of big oil).

It seems to me that 100 years ago, it was VERY common practice for women to blanche their skin with arsenic. Don't see much of that these days, and why not you ask? Because it was ruled out to be bad for you.

Well now, wait a second... how can it be that people don't go after arsenic anymore (a poison) but can't get enough of nicotine (a poison)? It's because nicotine is ADDICTIVE, and that quality all but forces people, especially those susceptible to addiction, to continue puffing the cigs.

Just read Randy Dyck's posting for proof. "The light stuff didn't do it for me". Why not? If all he was interested in was that Great smooth taste of burning plant, why should it matter if there is any less nicotine in the picture.

Nicotine itself is a colourless, odourless, tasteless substance. Can't be for flavour then. It just doesn't really make any sense. Why would cig companies put it in, in larger and larger quantities, if it does absolutely nothing... (except hook more and more users to a product that harms their own health).

Ahh... the question that truely... burns.

I'm definitely anti-smoking, but I'd be curious to know if the % increase in nicotine is due to a an actual increase in nicotine. The alternative is that it could be caused by a reduction or removal of other (potentially harmful) compounds.

That explanation may also explain the legality of it, at least if the laws are based on real amounts, not % amounts.

At any rate, I'd probably bet big tobacco has been increasing nicotine levels, I'm just trying to be optimistic.

Tobacco companies have always been secretive; who knows what else they've been adding to their products to increase addiction among users. The biggest tobacco company in Canada, Imperial Tobacco, has filed in January 2006 "to be released from its obligations as a reporting issuer under Canadian securities legislation" since all it's shares are privately-held and it has no issued bonds in Canada. This basically means that the company will not be required to file financial statements or other disclosure material in Canada.

Hey, Big Tobacco, where's the harm in reporting that you've made millions in profit, year-after-year, on the backs of smokers and second-hand smoke victims?! What a bunch of hypocrits, especially since the company states on it's website that it has "embarked on a process to communicate more openly and interactively with our stakeholders in the spirit of corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting."

Health care is not an issue. We have government sponsored gambling addictions to pay for that.

I would love to hear anyone's opinion on exactly how big tobacco has survived this long. I know there has been some victories on the "anti" side, but what has been the legal arguements that has allowed a situation like this to continue on? Why is there no legal restriction on the amount of nicotine allowed in cigs? I know it is a stupid question....

Stephen L in Winnipeg...I'll take this opportunity to disagree with you. Prohibition does not work...maybe it will reduce smoking somewhat...but overall it only criminalizes, marginalizes and glorifies usage. And our current war on "drugs" and the previous one on booze shows that.

It is about time they gave the smokers what they need; more nicotine. The light stuff didn't do it for me. I needed the strong smokes and that is what they are giving the smokers - strong cigarettes. Still, it makes it tougher to quit, but you don't smoke as much. 7 years without a smoke.

The tobacco industry is typical of the American
military-industrial complex; this kind of cynical predation can be found in the junk food
industry, the arms industry, the oil industry.... This is one of the underlying reasons for the immense unpopularity of the US
throughtout the world.

Taxes? Yes. But not only taxes. Governments are cynical. If a man dies of heart disease caused by smoking at some age of 50 or 60 y.o., they won't have to pension the man who has already given his best years to the country. E.g. in my country where smoking is dramatically common in all ages and genders, man's life span is less then the official retire age. Women live a bit longer, sure.

Why does this not surprise me in the least. The companys need and want the consumer and the Gov wants the money. If this was any other product for human consuption, the Fed's would be all over it, but we dont hear a peep, does that surprise anybody?, I dont think so

Wow! I mean wow! No I don't. This isn't a surprise is it? I hope not, I hope that everyone reading this is actually an informed individual who knows that large corporations, like tobacco companies, will do anything to increase profitability. Anything.

Yes that even means butchering their own clients with poisons like nicotine and a plethora of others. But I can feel that this article will be met with a certain... ire.

Smokers have rights too, blah blah blah. Honestly, I don't think people should be allowed to smoke or drink. That's my opinion and YOU don't have to agree. But should you disagree with that, give me a good reason. No, not that buggaloo bruhawhaw about it being your constitutional right. It's hazardous to your health.

You know what hazardous means right? Cigarettes are the long term equivalent of swimming with toasters, or proving to people that you really are Superman.

No it's true you don't have to respect your own body either, but if you don't, then it becomes other peoples' responsibility to care for you... at least in Canada, Europe and well just about everywhere else in the world except the U.S.'s privatized healthcare-not system.

I'd like to finish by stating that I agree that Big Tobacco is infuriating me with its amoral antics. BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

It's not only the tobacco companies who are at fault. Considering how much taxes governments collect on the sale of cigarettes, nothing will change. No one in government will make a move towards penalizing tobacco companies, since it would reduce the tax share the governments collect.