Slashdot Mirror
Nicotine-Free Cigs, Genetically Engineered
jim.b0b writes "Wired has an interesting article about nicotine-free cigarettes, made from genetically engineered tobacco grown by Amish farmers. Vector Tobacco is hoping that their Quest cigarettes will make them a viable competitor to RJR and Phillip Morris. Don't worry, they are nicotine-free, not carcinogen-free."
IANAS (I am not a smoker) but isn't the reason most people smoke for the nicotine?
That's like alcohol-free beer. What's the point?
One main reason smokers smoke one or two or more packs a day is that is the level of nicotine they are addicted to. Take away the nicotine and they'll be puffing away on 4-6 packs a day...
Ishmael: Hey Ezekiel! I have an idea! We can grow genetically engineered tobacco that is non-habit forming!!!
Ezekiel: That's wonderful! What is genetic engineering?
Ishmael: Well, you take this machine, plug it in, and...oh...nevermind.
Isnt another name for this marijuana?
The point of these cigarettes are to help people trying to quit smoking, actually succeed by slowly weaning themselves off the chemical dependency of nicotine. After that, they can address the psychological dependency of having something to puff on.
"Asking smokers to quit smoking is like telling people to get out from under the sun, its not going to happen...so you sell them sunscreen."
Hades, PoD: Official Advocate
Not to be contrary but as far as I understand it (IANA - I Am Not Amish) The Amish do not shun all technology as a matter of course.. They evaluate technology for it's impact on their way of life. If the impact is negative (by their criteria, which may have a spiritual component) then the tech is yanked.
A couple years ago wired published an article about the Amish evaluating cell phones and I found if a very engrossing read.
As a technophile the Amish (Perhaps mislabeled as technophobes) completely fascinate me. Like trying to get the perspective from the other side of the coin. never a bad thing in my mind.
I agree that this does sound like a contradiction, but I went to eat at an Amish restaraunt last summer and was surprised to read a pamphlet about their lifestyle that said they don't shun technology outright. Instead they are trying to avoid intrusions into the home, maintain Gelassenheit (simplicity and modesty) and stay seperate from the rest of the world. The Amish leaders consider each technology carefully before deciding whether to allow it into the community. They don't drive cars because they are status symbols. They don't have electrical outlets because they connect to the world, but they do have generator and batteries. Community telephones are allowed and some Amish men carry mobile phones. There are some definitely some weird contradictions like tractors are ok, but pneumatic tires aren't, so they only use tractors with steel wheels.
More info: Amish Telephones The Amish: Technology The Amish Get Wired. The Amish? Amish FAQ
They have engineered the reverse, in a sense. Nicotine patches, gum, and so forth. Unfortunately, these are all priced far above the cost of nicotine delivered in a cigarette, so only those who can justify the cost as an aid to quitting will use these products.
I see this as a perfect example of our screwy, chaotic, and counterproductive attitude toward drugs. Cigarettes give you cancer and heart disease, so instead of finding a healthier delivery system for addicts, we tell them they either have to smoke cigarettes or go without their drug. Or use oral tobacco with none of the carcinogens taken out, so addicts can enjoy a new set of cancers.
This doesn't make any sense. Why not grasp the reality that some people are addicted to nicotine and like the effects? Why not provide them with a less-dangerous alternative? Surely a nicotine pill or drink could be made at a competitive price-per-dose. Lives would be saved.
By the way, this isn't entirely a theoretical viewpoint. In Sweden an oral preparation called snus, is used by many Swedish nicotine addicts and Sweden has the lowest rate of male lung cancer in Europe. It does increase oral cancer rates somewhat, but that's a bug, not a feature. With our present pharmaceutical abilities, we ought to be able to come up with a delivery system that has harmful effects no worse than the drug itself. Nicotine, while not harmless, is less harmful than smoking cigarettes or dipping snuff.
Maybe one of these days we'll start treating drug use and abuse realistically, but not yet.
To me it is folly to tie the health effects of tobacco, good or bad, with public policy.
Individuals should be free to smoke, but be held responsible for the natural consequences. This holds for "good tobacco" or "bad tobacco", as well as other drugs.
(Full disclosure: Non-smoker. Ex-smoker, but not against smoking where permitted by property owners.)