Safe Cigarettes? 844
CDPatten writes "The UK Times Online is reporting that we could see a 'safe cigarette' next
year. From the article: 'BRITISH American Tobacco
(BAT) is to launch a controversial 'safer cigarette' designed to cut the risk of
smoking-related diseases such as cancer and heart failure by up to 90%.'
I wonder if this will have any impact on the no smoking bans we have seen in recent years?"
tobacco still sucks (Score:5, Insightful)
Phillip Morris says... (Score:5, Insightful)
Smoke isn't safe. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well (Score:1, Insightful)
bans? (Score:5, Insightful)
hopefully not. All the bans are not about health of smokers, it's about fresh air for non-smokers. Who cares if that stinking person over there inhales deadly stuff, or less deadly? It all stinks the same.
Hmmmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Zero chance of it having any impact. From the article:
"John Britton, professor of epidemiology at Nottingham University, said: "Anything involving inhaling smoke is unsafe. These new cigarettes could be more like jumping from the 15th floor instead of the 20th: theoretically the risk is less but you still die."
To me it sounds like those "light" smokes that floating around. Safer in theory, but in reality they're still dangerous. So don't expect smoking bans to end anytime soon.
Re:Cause or Risk Factor? (warning pro-smoking) (Score:1, Insightful)
I believe the science. Also personal experience. I watched my grandfater die a painful death from lung cancer. I know smokers who can run a marathon and I know smokers who can't run at all. A family friend died at 55 from lung cancer. It's not hype.
Just like the USA... (Score:5, Insightful)
Rather than a 'Safe Cigarette' (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Phillip Morris says... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's only save when they cut the risk of smoking-related diseases such as cancer and heart failure by up to 100%
It's only safe when the cut the risk of smoking-related diseases by at least 100%...
;-)
Smoking Bans... (Score:4, Insightful)
One cigarrette can lessen a dining or movie experience for a large number of people, and over time the smoke and ash saturate the environment.
Thus even if there are nos mokers present, it can still smell, and therefore taste, of smoke.
If I were addicted to highly concentrated sulfur fumes, or banging symbols loudly, I would not expect establishments to tolerate me.
Crying babies are another issue, but at least the baby will eventually grow up into a productive member of society. In theory, that is.
Safer second-hand smoke? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cause or Risk Factor? (warning pro-smoking) (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:bans? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cause or Risk Factor? (warning pro-smoking) (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as passive smoking -vs- unhealthy diets, if someone on the next table eats a bag of pork rinds, my eyes don't start to water and I don't leave the building smelling like an ash-tray. If someone on the next table eats the world's healthiest dinner but lights up, I end up leaving smelling like an ash tray. That's the difference - a person's unhealthy diet doesn't affect nearby strangers but their smoking will. That's the main problem with second hand smoke. I couldn't care less if it's totally harmless to me in the long term - in the short term it gives me what feels like an allergic reaction (stuffiness, watering eyes, lethargy) which isn't very pleasant. That's why there is a move on to ban smoking in public places. In the privacy of your own home, knock yourself out - I couldn't care less whether you smoke marijuana or tobacco. But in enclosed public spaces, please refrain from it - those of us who don't smoke find it at best smelly, at worst, feeling a bit ill.
Re:bans? (Score:1, Insightful)
I do, because smokers are a big part of the reason why insurances are so costly (unless you go term).
Re:Don't remove bans please (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:bans? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Doubtful (Score:5, Insightful)
That, and put a smoker in a room with someone that has a "different annoying habit"... like projectile vomiting. See how long they continue to believe that everyone has the "right to be annoying to the public".
RE: Smoking bans (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:bans? (Score:2, Insightful)
Like many nonsmokers, I enjoy being able to breathe and smell properly. Smokers are welcome to smoke whatever they want as long as they don't inflict its byproducts on me.
I think that the bans will stay in place and even spread. Heck, didn't I just hear that FRANCE, long considered a smoker's paradise, is thinking of instituting public smoking bans?
Re:Don't remove bans please (Score:3, Insightful)
The filters may be fine for those doing the smoking, but what about the rest of us who get stuck having to smell the other byproducts? If the location selection is up to me I'll avoid a place if I see people smoking, but where we go is not always up to me. Cigarette smoke is that nasty stuff that doesn't go away unless the ventalation system rivals that of a clean room. It gets into/onto everything, skin, hair, clothes and can't forget about food and drink, yes, you're eating what that person is puffing out and you don't have the benefit of three or however many filters the tomacco companies claim to put in their death sticks.
Re:We need deadlier cigarettes (Score:5, Insightful)
Of the four comparisons you made here three were invalid and the fourth actually proved his point
- Make cars more unsafe so people die when they crash? That way we will have fewer crashes
- Make materials more flameable? That way a fire will ensure everyone gets killed. THAT will teach people to be more carefule with matches and lighters.
- Make cellphones give you an electroshock when you say something ungodly? Then everyone will be religious and believe in the same crap.
Cars, matches and lighters, and cellphones are all very useful items that in some cases have innately dangerous qualities, people should exert caution with them but we lose a lot of benefit if people stop using them entirely. Cigarrettes on the other hand have no real benefits thus nothing is lost if people stop using them.
Yes, by golly! I think you are on to something... Why not just use all the nuclear weapons we have? Then we will not be having this discussion in the future!
We haven't used a nuclear weapon in a war since WWII, in fact because nuclear weapons are so insanely deadly there hasn't been a full out war between major powers since WWII, we simply made war so deadly with nukes that people stopped having them because is was MAD... Hey, isn't that exactly the point the grandparent was trying to make with about using extra deadly cigarettes?
Re:bans? (Score:5, Insightful)
have you noticed the small holes on the filter? By covering those, you'll inhale more smoke and thus more nicotine. The tobacco industry made research on where to put those holes so that people will generall cover them.
It's all about getting people hooked on nicotine addiction in order to sell more tobacco. This is a industry with long established practice of lying (including to the US Congress), faking research data and keeping "unwelcome" research from ever getting public.
Although I don't disagree with you... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The difference is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just like the USA... (Score:3, Insightful)
I am a smoker (Score:4, Insightful)
It's obvious...
That's it.
Re:The Racket (Score:5, Insightful)
It's quotes like that that really make me wonder why our goverment doesn't legalize marijuana and tax it like tobacco. Save billions on enforcement (~80% of drug arrests are marijuana possession), and make tens of billions in taxes.
Maybe they're too to stoned to realize.
Re:The Racket (Score:4, Insightful)
You really think the government needs a reason to tax? Please. Taxing something unpopular is easy to do because the powers that be know that they aren't offending the majority. We know that red meat is unhealthy and is probably just as costly to society in the way of illness and death but when do you expect to pay a tax on Big Macs? The difference? 1 in 6 people in the US smokes, 29 in 30 people in the US eats red meat. (those are rough figures, you get the point).
So under the pretense of discouraging cigarette smoking, politicians can impose a regressive racist tax.
Racist? How, praytell, is "the man" forcing these smokes on the minority races? No one is forcing anyone to smoke. It's odd that "the poor" (which you seem to associate directly with minority races) seem to bitch and moan about every cent they spend in taxes as they smoke away a large percentage of their income. Not smoking is a very valid option. I will not be made to feel bad about the fact that minorities make up for the bulk of the poor and for whatever reason these same people feel the need to piss away what little expendable cash they have on smokes. It's their choice, I won't begrudge them for it but don't make it sound like they're somehow the victim. Just because you're poor doesn't mean you need to act stupid.
This is like some of the old women that work at the company I work for; they're on their smoke breaks bitching about gas costing 75 cents more a gallon as they puff away and talk about spending money on the Powerball lottery but in nearly the same breath they complain that if the price of gas continues to be high they will have to make the choice between "eating and driving". This is no bullshit. If you're spending 4-5 USD a day on cigarettes there should be no reason for bills to be late nor for you to not have enough money for some of the basic needs in life. I won't even go on to my thoughts about the people who pay for their groceries with foodstamps but buy a couple of cartons of smokes either...
Re:What I'm waiting for is... (Score:2, Insightful)
Heroin, alcohol, ecstasy, and tobacco are the same way, you can safely do reasonable amounts for long periods without frying/killing yourself. The problems arise from people's weakness of will and inability to control themselves and their addictions.
Re:We need deadlier cigarettes (Score:4, Insightful)
[...] we simply made war so deadly with nukes that people stopped having them because is was MAD...
Excuse me, stopped having wars?
Seriously though, I'm a smoker and I absolutely love smoking. I can spend 10 minutes doing abosolutely nothing but enjoying a cigarette. Don't ask me why, because I don't know. I can find plenty of worse ways to go [darwinawards.com]. Smoking really works for me and I don't mind trading off a few years of my life for it.
I understand and respect how and why non-smokers can be annoyed by smoke, that's fine and understandable, but don't force your tired arguments down our throats. Smoking is a personal choice, so leave it at that, please. I've met one too many non-smokers who's been trying to "save me", which really just annoys me and won't ever work.
Re:Exactly (Score:3, Insightful)
Note: these are people smoking directly in front of "No smking" signs, but building management won't do anything. And you won't believe how rude they can be if you suggest that they could move around the side of the building where they are allowed to smoke.
Re:We need deadlier cigarettes (Score:5, Insightful)
I have another idea! We can force everyone to exercise every day, it would save a lot of lives! We'll make it a mandatory part of everyone's workday, right after the two-minutes'-hate.
Re:Smoke isn't safe. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:bans? (Score:3, Insightful)
Two big problems with this:
Save me from them! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Smoke isn't safe. (Score:3, Insightful)
There is 160,000 lung cancer deaths alone in the US. The majority of this is due to cigarette smoking.
If we could reduce this number by only 1%, that would result in over a thousand lives saved each year. If we could reduce it by 10%, it would be ober ten thousand lives saved each year.
Re:Cause or Risk Factor? (warning pro-smoking) (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We need deadlier cigarettes (Score:5, Insightful)
Excuse me, stopped having wars?
Not sure if you were being sarcastic but that statement was qualified with the preceeding phrase "there hasn't been a full out war between major powers since WWII". Which to my knowledge is correct, the "we" in the quote you took was of course referring to the "major powers" and "war" was "war between major powers".
Seriously though, I'm a smoker and I absolutely love smoking. I can spend 10 minutes doing abosolutely nothing but enjoying a cigarette. Don't ask me why, because I don't know. I can find plenty of worse ways to go. Smoking really works for me and I don't mind trading off a few years of my life for it.
I understand and respect how and why non-smokers can be annoyed by smoke, that's fine and understandable, but don't force your tired arguments down our throats. Smoking is a personal choice, so leave it at that, please. I've met one too many non-smokers who's been trying to "save me", which really just annoys me and won't ever work.
You sound like a nice person so I'd rather you didn't die a few years earlier, but that's just me. Note that in addition to your harming own health you are damaging the health of others, both directly through second hand smoke and indirectly through reinforcing the social acceptability of smoking. I don't know if you have children but if you did would you truly want your children to start smoking... did I just play the "won't sombody think of the children" card? (don't feel obliged to take that point seriously;)
Either way if you really do like smoking and feel the cost is worth it than go ahead, but I'd ask you to be considerate of where you do smoke. Consider it like talking on your cellphone, alone in your house, sure, in a theatre, not so good. I can tell you I never really enjoy walking through a cloud of smoke (and smokers) hanging around the entrance to a building on campus. As well I've heard cigarette smoke can be extremely annoying to former smokers. Again, as with any decision look at all the different costs and benefits impartially and decide accordingly.
Re:bans? (Score:3, Insightful)
Excuse me, smokers can force smokers to "escape"? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't just slip that in - that's THE crux of the smoking bans. Somebody is going to be inconvienced, either smokers (forced to go outside or special smoking rooms) or non-smokers (forced to "escape" the fumes as you so quaintly phrased it).
These situations are not symmetrical. Smokers can still enjoy non-smoking venues. Smokers often report preferring non-smoking venues for several reasons - their non-smoking friends are more likely to join them, they can taste their own food better, they aren't tempted to light up themselves as smoke from an adjacent patron waffs by. Smokers who are quiting can't even go into smoking venues because of the last item. At worst they're inconvenienced for minutes every few hours.
Non-smokers, in contrast, don't have any choices. "Non-smoking areas" are a joke. If the smoke bothers us (and I've had to walk away from non-refundable admissions because the smoke caused my eyes to water within minutes) it's going to bother us the entire time we're there, not for a few minutes every few hours.
There's also the issue of fairness to the employees. It's easy for us to say that employees can always change jobs if they don't like dealing with smoke throughout the day, but back in the real world we know that people at this economic rung are often stuck in their job since they live from check to check and can't afford even a modest reduction in hours as the new guy.
Those are reasons for businesses to go smoke-free, is it a valid reason to make it mandatory? That's a non-trivial question -- if you think it's obviously not appropriate for the government to get involved ask yourself how you would feel if most restaurants were "white only" because the owners felt they would lose sales (from white patrons avoiding them) if they allowed non-whites to eat there. It's not an exact parallel but it demolishes the "owner uber alles" mindset.
Re:Still Safe? (Score:2, Insightful)
No, because it's now a witch hunt.
Re:Smoke isn't safe. (Score:3, Insightful)
And it isn't selfish to impose cigarette smoke on people who don't want it anywhere near them? Particularly the ones for whom even small amounts of passive smoking triggers asthma attacks.
Reminds me of a news article I saw about some truck drivers who blockaded the pacific highway to protest against rising petrol prices. There was a shot of him telling someone "Try thinking about someone other than yourself you selfish bastard". This from a guy who's holding up thousands of people who pay the same price for petrol as he does.
selfish: adj. Person who expresses a concern contrary to my interests.
Re:What I'm waiting for is... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's why they're called addictions! Step down from your moral argument: the pope is just as likely to get addicted to heroin as Joe sixpack. That's why it's dangerous.
Re:Still Safe? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hint: witches are imaginary or harmless. Smokers are real, their nuisance is lethal, and your troll is a failure.
Re:Still Safe? (Score:5, Insightful)
you're right - cars, trucks, and other hydrocarbon-fuel based engines and generators should be banned from public spaces.
Re:Smoke isn't safe. (Score:3, Insightful)
No, I think you don't get the point the GP poster was trying to make. The fact is that you are mortal, and when you were born you were born to ultimately die. There is no way that you can escape this fate. Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.
I am a smoker, and I enjoy it. I am very aware it is bad for me. I have had family members die from smoking. However, under your rationale, since terrorists use planes, and when they do that causes people to die, we should not get on airplanes, because it increases our risk of death. And since there are heroin junkies that roam the streets looking for people to rob, we shouldn't go out in public.
Smoking is something that people choose to do. Human beings have free will, and you sure as hell don't have the right to tell anyone what they may or may not do. Skydiving is dangerous, too. There's a very good chance that your 'chute will fail or something else will occur that will kill you. Also, there's the chance you could kill someone else while landing. Shall we ban skydiving? Or Automobiles, since driving an automobile puts you in harm's way, out on the public roads with all those idiots who don't understand a turn signal or proper following distance?
There are many, many things in this world that can kill you. You yourself are probably the most dangerous thing to your own safety. Shall we put you in five point restraints and feed you through a tube, keeping you immobile, since your own human stupidity is likely to do you in?
No. It's my choice to smoke. If I'm outside, and there are people around, before I light up I ask them if they mind if I smoke. If they say, "Yes, I do mind," I simply walk somewhere else. And to turn the situation around, if I am outside smoking, and someone walks up and sits down where I am, they have no right to ask me to put out my cigarette (although I generally will do so anyway, being a nice human being.) They could see when they were walking to where I was I was smoking. If they didn't like it, they could have sat elsewhere.
Now, one thing I will not do, is smoke inside a building (or in a outdoor setting with virtually no circulation of the air) because I myself do not like to be in a smoke filled box. But a bar or a restaraunt are private property -- and the government has no right to tell people that they must forbid smoking on their own private property. If you don't like the fact that a bar is smokey, don't go there. Find some place else. Because I know that bar owners would generally much rather have smokers at their bars than ban them, because smokers make up a larger percentage of the population than people who are so distasteful of smoking in bars that they will not come if smokers are there.
I guess what I'm trying to say is: Life is Dangerous. Grow up.
Re:Still Safe? (Score:5, Insightful)
it wasn't really sarcastic. it was highlighting the fact that the "smoking in public places" issue is just a red herring to distract people from the REAL health risk, carcinogens like benzene in petrol fumes, and (worst of all), diesel exhaust.
Re:Still Safe? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Still Safe? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Still Safe? (Score:3, Insightful)
Non smokers die every day.
Sorry.
Re:Still Safe? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Still Safe? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Still Safe? (Score:3, Insightful)
Disclaimer: I don't smoke.
Re:Cause or Risk Factor? (warning pro-smoking) (Score:3, Insightful)
That is not clear at all. You hear more from the smokers because they're obnoxious assholes. When strangers smoke near me, I generally give them an unpleasant look and move away. They never know or care how much of a problem they're causing me. Do you smoke? Do you get those looks? Next time, ask why.
It is common to some have degree of problems caused by second-hand smoke. The grandparent's watery eyes and headache are similar to my symptoms, just not as severe. People don't speak up because smoking is accepted. That's changing in most areas.
If you want to see scientific studies that link second-hand smoke to short-term medical problems, just google "second-hand smoke asthma". First hit [ash.org.uk]. I've also heard that smoking in the home is either the #1 or #2 risk factor for asthma in children. You can debate that, of course, since correlation is not causation. (Smoking is more common among the poor and in the South.) But there is evidence, and more is coming. For better or for worse, there will come a day when you can have your children taken away for smoking around them.
If I start having seizures whenever I see the color red, am I justified in asking everyone to stop wearing red for me and the other 3 people in the world with my affliction?
No, because you just made that up. I have real physiological problems that are much more common than you think. Do you really think you can blow known carcinogens and toxic chemicals into the air around you and not cause people problems?
A better analogy would be peanut butter allergies. Very similar, fairly rare. There are people around who will die if they eat peanut butter. They demand accurate ingredient lists so that they don't eat peanuts involuntarily. I demand that I don't get second-hand smoke forced on me. They aren't suggesting outlawing the sale or consumption of peanuts. I'm not suggesting banning smoking in your own home. If you want to kill yourself, that's fine. But don't involve me.
Wow. Touchy Subject. (Score:2, Insightful)
Many of them are not flamebait or trollish at all, just people speaking their view.
Re:Still Safe? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Still Safe? Never safe (Score:4, Insightful)
Consider this concept of personal freedom: If I'm having a party, I have every right to tell my guests that I don't want them to smoke on property. My guests who smoke may choose not to come to my party because I won't let them smoke. They may choose to stand on the sidewalk in front of my house and smoke. They may choose to not smoke while at my party. They have the freedom to decide.
If I'm having a party, I have every right to tell my guests to light up. My guests who do not smoke can choose not to come to my party if they don't wish to inhale smoke. They may choose to avoid smokers and end up hanging out someplace where there are no smokers, such as on the sidewalk in front of my house. They may choose to put up with the smoke. They have the freedom to decide.
To me, personal freedom is about the right to choose. I don't have to agree with their choices. I may wish they wouldn't choose these things. I may not want to be around them when they choose these things. But that doesn't mean that I have the right to not allow them to choose.
Last night, I went out to dinner with a friend of mine. We were at a nice restaurant enjoying a quiet meal and conversation. Unfortunately, about half-way through our meal, a group of people came in and ended up sitting at a table close to us. They'd probably been sitting at the bar for an hour or so, so they were already a little drunk and loud. They ordered a couple of bottles of wine and started getting a little loud. It certainly was annoying. Were infringing on my "personal freedom" to enjoy a quiet dinner? Had I gone to the restaurant and complained, would I be infringing on their "personal freedom" to have a good time?
You'd prefer not to be annoyed by cigarette smoke while enjoying a night out and I can't say that I blame you. But to equate your preferences with "personal freedom" is a bit much. To go back to your term, "right", you don't have the "right" to make everybody else do what you want.
Drug Addicts (Smokers Included) Cost Society Money (Score:1, Insightful)
The statement that smoking only harms the smoker is a myth.
I'm a physician, and of the extremely ill patients I admit for heart and pulmonary disease, an astonishingly high proportion of them are sick because of smoking. Their care costs a fortune, and we're obligated to give it to them regardless of their (in)ability to pay for it.
Now, there are important ethical questions about who should pay for treatment of self-inflicted disease. I'm not suggesting that someone should be denied treatment because they made bad choices. But we as a society need to quit pretending that smoking (or drinking to excess) is just another "OK" choice that harms only the smoker. Smokers are addicts. They are drug abusers that cost society far, far more than all illicit drug users combined. Please do not perpetuate the myth that a smoker or other addict is only harming himself.
Smoking in your own living room should be as socially unacceptable as urinating on the carpet in front of your TV. I'm not saying it should be illegal - just widely viewed with disgust and disapproval.
Re:We need deadlier cigarettes (Score:2, Insightful)
There might be no real evidence but when non-smokers start waving away the smoke and they start to cough, that's a pretty good sign that it's irritating them. It might or might not give them longue cancer, but that's really not the point. It's annoying them, that's the point. Why annoy other people if they haven't done anything to deserve it?
I get annoyed too by the "smokers are murderers" attitude too and I think it's tidiculous, but I know smoke can be annoying to non-smokers and it doesn't hurt anyone to pay a little respect to others around you.