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?"
Cause or Risk Factor? (warning pro-smoking) (Score:5, Interesting)
My physician smokes 2+ packs a day. He's 80. He runs, avoids trans fats and high glycemic foods. Many of my older customers smoke but also maintain good diets and exercise.
I started smoking at 21. I had bad bouts with kidney stones that no medications or diet helped. A San Francisco quack Chinese herbal nut told me to smoke. 5 years with zero kidney attacks. Giving it up at 26 gave me 3 years of kidney pains. Smoking again relieved it. Since I stopped a few weeks ago, the pains are back.
My TMJ was also reduced from smoking. It has affected me since the age of 11.
I'm not saying smoking is safe or healthy. I am saying it has some benefits, and the high carb high trans fat diet of most Westerners is far worse. If it wasn't for high taxes and tort suit payments, I'd continue to smoke. I know I live a healthier life because of it.
By the way, I ran a half marathon while smoking 10 cigarettes, and am in great physical shape (good blood pressure, cholesterol, etc). Don't believe the hype.
Environment (Score:5, Interesting)
Not only is it a useless and harmful pastime to people, it greatly hurts the environment. Up here in New England (USA) we even have stories of deer venturing onto roads to eat cigarette butts and causing accidents, all because they are addicted. It is also just unsightly to see them all over roads and sidewalks. All things considered it is harmful to everything and everyone.
Re:We need deadlier cigarettes (Score:3, Interesting)
- 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.
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!
passive smoking (Score:3, Interesting)
Most of the 'added safety' is in the filter.
Much of the passive smoke comes straight from the cigarette tip without passing through the filter, so there's little change there.
Making money on addicts, not cool! (Score:1, Interesting)
smoke in your lungs is bad for you blah blah blah because some people where brought
up around it. The fact is that _many_ people are addicted and the government is
making _big_ money from addictions! That's wrong in retrospect being that the gov
doesn't even provide patches or gum with all the money they make!
Maybe I'm wrong and they spend all that money on health care?
The Racket (Score:3, Interesting)
If our government weren't addicted to the $15.7 billion dollars in taxes [mises.org] they collect on an annual basis from cigarettes, we would get safe cigarettes in a heartbeat. Right now, though, too many pet projects depend on cigarettes being dangerous for that to change.
Exactly (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:tobacco still sucks - canabis (Score:5, Interesting)
we'd like to see something nicotine free, but burn well. we're going to do canabis whether it's legal or not, as will other smokers smoke. I think this sort of thing is a good thing for most involved.
if they legalised pot, and made better ways of regulating the doses I'm sure we'd all be a lot happier!
Re:Just like the USA... (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, wait, now you don't support banning something because it's addictive?
People need to make their own decisions. That's the entire bloody POINT of the United States, at least it used to be. If you want to smoke, great, go for it. Drink all the booze you want, go for a bender, and that's fine, although you have to live with the consequences. The government has no say in how much of an idiot you can be, and in fact, being a rank moron seems to enhance your political abilities...
That being said, there is nothing wrong with the government making it *safer* to make bad decisions. You can still get drunk, but you can rest assured that your bottle of Jack Daniels doesn't contain large amounts of formaldehyde -- and this is a Good Thing. Likewise, helping current smokers have a better quality of life by making their addiction less harmful is also good.
I'm not a smoker -- used to be, but quit when I started boxing and climbing, and haven't smoked for awhile, but I still *know* and *care* about people who *do* smoke, and while I'd like them to quit, I'm not so much of an asshole as to think that they somehow *deserve* to die because they're addicted to smoking. I know there's a huge stigma against tobacco, and this is well-deserved, but to treat the problem of tobacco addiction as a black-and-white 'quit' or 'don't quit' issue is narrow-minded in the worst sense -- why not give people more options? Isn't that what our supposedly free country is all about?
Re:Exactly (Score:2, Interesting)
But if that person ran up to me an injected a small amount of mercury into me every day and as a result increased my likelyhood of death from mercury poisoning by a non zero number every day... I'd want em locked up.
Now second hand smoke is not as bad as mercury sure... but anything you do that increases my chance of death by one iota, I'm gonna want that legislated out of my face _right now_.
Re:Smoke isn't safe. (Score:3, Interesting)
bans on smoking in public places tend to be based on the annoyance an essentially selfish mob -- despite the lack of any evidence to suggest that there are any detectable consequences to periodic outdoor exposure, or occasional indoor exposure to secondhand smoke.
(when you ask the "smoking ban" crowd about the major reasons to support their proposals, it usually has something to do with not liking how their clothes smell when they get back from a bar.)
smoking bans are centered mostly around "getting rid of the smokers", and not around any sort of logically conceived rationale. certainly, those who spend most days indoors with a smoker are exposed to harmful levels of secondhand smoke, but the "smoking ban" mob has twisted those studies quite dishonestly, applying them to situations, such as public parks and bars, where the exposure is so limited that it has not been possible to prove any health consequences except for the smoker.
merely living in los angeles, for example, is far, far worse than sitting next to someone at the bar who's smoking a cigarette. driving five miles in an SUV, i've read, produces the same amount of airborne toxins as something like twenty packs of cigarettes.
it is natural that the tobacco industry should try to produce a less harmful cigarette for those who do choose to smoke, or find themselves unable to quit. it is, however, entirely unrelated to the recent trend of smoking bans enacted rather dubious reasons.
Re:Cause or Risk Factor? (warning pro-smoking) (Score:3, Interesting)
A small sampling of the more popular studies:
http://www.springerlink.com/(dt10aj3uaf0uc555jygu
http://www.anesthesiology.org/pt/re/anes/abstract
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstra
And be sure to look at:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&clien
Smoking may well be beneficial to a small number of people. Particularly for certain kinds of pain management, I would expect nicotine to be an effective stimulant. However, you'd almost certainly be safer with a nicotine patch, and the rest of us around you would definitely be better off.
Safe? they should find a more efficient way (Score:2, Interesting)
So long as they don`t inflict their choices upon anyone who has not consented.
Smoking is a horrendously inefficient method of ingesting a drug, the vast majority of it goes up in the air to affect people nearby, or to settle on clothes, furniture, walls etc and make the environment stink.
If people choose to inject drugs into their bodies, or take tablets, good for them.. But to burn toxic substances and allow the fumes to pollute the environment of others should be made illegal. You have no right to go polluting the air that other people have to breathe.
Smoking does not gain you anything, there are much more efficient ways you could ingest nicotine, and the result won`t result in the smell of your presence causing offense to those nearby.
The stench of smoke has different effects on different people. I personally have a very negative reaction to it, especially to an environment which stinks of stale smoke.. If you imagine the worst possible hangover, where your head is thumping and you feel like your going to vomit any minute, then that`s the effect that inhaling smoke has on me. Most people aren`t affected so severely, but the vast majority of people dislike the smell, and that includes some smokers.
Also being in the presence of someone who smokes heavily, or has smoked recently is equally disgusting, they will stink of stale smoke and their presence is offensive.
If you think it`s acceptable to make other people breathe toxic fumes, i invite you to spend a few hours in a room where you are subjected to sulfur, various insecticides and strong solvents.. The kind of chemicals where people wear gas masks to work with them.
Personally i think smoking should be completely banned. If you really want to ingest nicotine, there are many other ways, such as patches, gum, tablets etc, which don`t affect others.
By smoking you are infact launching a chemical weapons attack against those around you. You are polluting their air with toxic fumes which will harm and potentially kill them.
Why are most forms of harming others banned, while smoking is not? What if Al-Qaeda blanketted a major city in a thick cloud of smoke? Would this attack simply be ignored? Why can a smoker get away with poisoning me and yet i can`t get away with beating him with a baseball bat? What if i instead got my revenge on him by gassing him with mustard gas ?
And by this same reckoning, since using gaseous poisoning seems to be acceptable, why is the holocaust considered a crime? Surely the nazis were just practicing their right to force others to breathe toxic fumes.
Re:Philip Morris LIES (Score:3, Interesting)
What's the point of making something safer if the government tells you that you're not allowed to tell people you did it? Would cars have airbags if there was a restriction against telling people they're installed?
Re:Phillip Morris says... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Yes! deadlier cigarettes! (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, non of this changes the fact that it's a disgusting habit, imposed on others in the form of passive smoking, and leaves clothes and hair stinking, and any rooms/furnishings stinking forever after.
Personally I loath smoking, and would support any taxes or bans imposed on it; morally I think people have a right to kill themselves however they want to - but please do it in your own homes.
Re:tobacco still sucks (Score:5, Interesting)
Candles and Incense (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Cause or Risk Factor? (warning pro-smoking) (Score:5, Interesting)
Some of us more than a bit ill. Second-hand smoke causes me real short-term problems. I've heard people say that cigarette smoke isn't an allergen; it's chemical sensitivity. Whatever you call it, the effect is the similar to - but more potent than - my other allergies. My eyes burn and water, I cough and sneeze, and my sinuses fill, which often leads to a sinus infection, which means a week of misery and $100 of antibiotics. Probably a day missed from work. I used to live in Iowa, so there were a number of places I just couldn't go - bars, bowling alleys, etc. I had sinus surgery to to prevent the infections, with disappointing results.
I've moved to California, where they have seen reason. I can go anywhere. I'm incredibly sensitive to smoke, so I do have occasional problems still. I'll smell smoke and see a coworker who walked past and is now 100 feet away; the smell lingers. If I smell it, I know it will cause me problems. If I don't smell it, it still might. (I once had a pretty bad reaction to a hotel room that smelled just fine to me. Never found out why.) I deliberately shun people who smell like smoke. If I am forced to be near them, I take a shower as soon as I get home.
My smoking rule: (Score:4, Interesting)
This lets all cigarettes off the list, as very little of their content is actual tobacco. The rest is chemicals, mostly formulated to give you an intense rush and keep you addicted. Try smoking pure tobacco out of a pipe for a week. You'll feel better, and you won't get dizzy with the rush of the first smoke of the morning, it tastes and smells better (non-smokers always compliment the aroma of a pipe; when did that ever happen with a Marlboro?), and, while you'll still have the habit, it won't be as extreme. Natural tobacco doesn't make you feel like a crack addict who's going to snap if you don't get your fix NOW! - it's a kinder, gentler urge which makes it easier to gradually cut down. You can make it through a whole day without and it doesn't drive you crazy.
PS Cigarettes are the only thing I can think of that one can purchase for ingestion that doesn't have any ingredient information at all. Everything else - including gum, medicine, and even things you don't ingest like cleaning products has the components listed in meticulous detail. What do you suppose the big secret is?
Re:We need deadlier cigarettes (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, you're right. I was a bit fast on the reply-button there. No, we haven't had any all-out wars between major powers since ww2, but I'm not sure that can be attributed to nukes alone. The way of war has changed a lot too. Wars are now fought more through propaganda than ever before, just look at the media... "Keep the people scared, so they're more easilly convinced that invading every middle-eastern country is a capital idea!" :-p (Ok, j/k - at least about the last part of the former sentence.)
You sound like a nice person so I'd rather you didn't die a few years earlier
Why, thank you! :)
[...] I'd ask you to be considerate of where you do smoke. Consider it like talking on your cellphone [...]
That's pretty much exactly what I'm trying to. (Though, some teenagers seem to not get that talking on a cellphone in the theatre is annoying to others.) I'm very well aware that non-smokers are easilly annoyed by my smoking, so I try to only smoke where I'm allowed to. (Of course there are the occasional mishaps, where I have missed a "no smoking" sign - but then I leave or extinguish my smoke when I'm made aware of it.) I'm not trying to irritate anyone by smoking, I'm just trying to smoke for my own sake.
However, places where smoking's allowed get more and more rare around here (Denmark), which kind of annoys me, because I hate being tossed outside when it's freezing and snowing. On the university we used to have some designated smokers' rooms with just a couple of tables, ashtrays, some chairs and a window. Now they've removed those and we're only allowed to smoke outside. :-( I really don't think they removed them because the non-smokers on the university got annoyed by the smokers in there. I mean, non-smokers had absolutely nothing to do there, since the only reason for coming there was smoking. So why did they remove them? Government policy, as far as I understand. Smoking is to be prohibited in all public buildings. It's not like there was any cost in maintaining those rooms, but for some reason they chose to remove them all... Just before the winter kicks in...
The witch-hunt has started and smokers are the prey. :-/
Now, regarding the social acceptability of smoking and won't somebody think of the children... ;-p
I don't have any children, but if I did I'd never encourage them to smoke, but neither would I try to stop them if they decided that they wanted to. My parents have always had a strong faith in my siblings and I being capable of making the right choices. I hope that I'll be able to trust my children in the same way. As I said, I have no doubt that I'm happier smoking than I would be not smoking, so for me smoking adds to the quality of my life (yeah, of course not physically, I know).
I don't think social acceptability is really anything to worry about, unless you want to place smokers in the same semantic category as pedophiles, drug addicts and the lot. I know some already do, but does smoking make anyone a bad person? Has a smoker ever commited a crime to pay for cigarettes? (Not that I know of.) This is directly related to the issue with trusting the children. If you trust that your children are capable of making the right decisions, then you needn't worry about them seeing people smoking. It's not like anyone can hide it completely anyways. At some point they will encounter someone smoking - if they're used to it chances are they'll think "hmm, just another smoker", but if it's something completely new, then they might suddenly get curious and maybe even try it because "it's so mysterious". I guess it can work the other way around too, if they start to smoke they'll be "just another smoker" (no big deal) or they'll be "different" (I guess it can be "different" in both a bad and a cool/good way). The issue of social acceptability of smoking is a delicate one and should be handled with care, but I don't think hiding stuff the way american media does is the way. I say, let people see what people do and let's then hope that everyone is able to make a right decision.
Long rant, sorry... I need a smoke. ;-)
Re:Still Safe? (Score:4, Interesting)
So your sarcastic comment is actually true. Which are all reasons why we've already decreased that pollution quite a bit - for our own good, despite our self-destructive desire to just burn away. But it's not enough - we're still burning too much, polluting ourselves too much. We need to cut down more. Especially as we're now approaching a forced quitting as the hydrocarbons run out. Thank you for seeing the light.
Re:Still Safe? (Score:2, Interesting)
As to enforcing opinions on others, if someone wants to go smoke i've got nothing against it. I start getting pissed off when my asthma flares up and I start coughing up blood all because some retarded moron thought it'd be a good idea to smoke around people who don't.
If you want to smoke go ahead, but don't be surprised when people like the parent get ever so slightly pissed off that money, that could otherwise be spent for actual curing of disease is spent on something that is easilly preventable by simply stopping smoking.
By the way, thanks to attitudes like yours it's the reason I have asthma. My father smoked heavilly around me when I was a kid, this was before that it was widely accepted that smoking caused lung based and other problems.
Re:tobacco still sucks (Score:1, Interesting)
yes, it is. but it's also pretty easy to break the actual addiction. about 3-5 days for most people. the hardest part is breaking the habit and the association of certain activities with smoking (like drinking coffee, reading email in the morning, after sex, after dinner, waiting for a tram/train/bus, geeking and other activities that require intense concentration, etc).
the other thing that's hard is feeling dopey and stupid for a few weeks after giving up as your brain gets used to working properly without nicotine. that's one thing that the anti-smoking lobby don't like to tell you, that you'll feel stupid for a few weeks. it's this, more than anything else, that caused the failure of several of my attempts to give up smoking over the years. i don't like feeling stupid, i don't like feeling "stoned", and that's how i feel for the first few weeks after quitting. not pleasant at all.
eventually your brain gets used to the lack of nicotine and gets back to working "normally", but it's hard going and unpleasant until that happens.
> A few months ago, I found myself smoking 2-3 cigarettes every evening after dinner.
the risk of smoking-related illness from 10 cigarettes or less per day is statistically the same as that of not smoking at all.
in other words, not a health risk.
petrol and diesel fumes and other airborne pollutants are far more danger to you, especially if you live near a busy road (and especially since they replaced heavy lead additives which only travel a few feet from the road, with light and extremely carcinogenic benzenes which travel dozens of metres from the road).
the main risk with smoking only a few cigarettes per day is that it's hard to stop there. most people who try this will gradually smoke more and more until they're back to smoking a full pack or more per day.
if i could smoke only a few per day, i would - and gladly (i enjoy the focus and clarity of thought that the drug nicotine gives me). but i've never been able to do that for more than a few months before i find myself smoking 10, then 15, then 20 per day again - so i don't smoke any more. it's far easier to smoke none than just a few.
btw, you don't have to become a holier-than-thou ex-smoker fascist to give up smoking. all you have to do is decide to stop and stick to it. there's no need to demonise the drug or the users.
(one of the things stopping me from giving smoking for years was annoyance and resentment at anti-smoking nazis and their obsessive, over-the-top propaganda. they're just convincing themselves how evil smoking is to bolster up their own will-power, and in the process alienating and pissing-off those who still smoke).
> Nicotine sucks.........
actually, nicotine is a damn nice drug. it's a CNS stimulant, and aids in concentration, focus, and memory.
nicotine is not the problem at all (at worst, it has a vaso-constrictive effect, which is easily countered by taking a vaso-dilator like ginkgo). the problem with smoking is the rest of the toxic shit in the smoke, much of it introduced by fertilizers and pesticides (many of which are permitted for tobacco but would be banned for food production) and the chemicals used in the drying process.
Re:I am a smoker (Score:3, Interesting)
About 18 months ago, I'd heard a friend that smokes complaining about how much tax money the government made off of smokers... so I took it upon myself to do a little research. With the help of Google, I was able to locate the relevant U.S. federal government sites. As it turns out, with the insane amount of money that is spent on tobacco smoking related illnesses (both in treatment and prevention), in order for cigarette taxes to fully pay for it, you would have to spend near $15 per pack of cigarettes.
The simple fact is that contrary to popular belief (I was fairly shocked, myself), smokers are not paying anywhere near enough in taxes to simple even with the cost of their healthcare.
Somewhere, I actually saved the three government reports and analysis pages... but for the life of me, I'm not sure where they are, off hand. I know one site used was the FDA. The other two were both
If you ask nicely, I may be able to find those pages (and the url's) and send them to you. But by the time I get around to locating them again, this story will likely be days old.
Re:What I'm waiting for is... (Score:3, Interesting)
As far as ecstasy is concerned, it's pretty much the same story, and they believe that use results in serious long time repercussions, not to mention the same problem as cocaine. You never know when the same dose will kill you.
Re:tobacco still sucks (Score:1, Interesting)
-I really love smoking, The taste. The smell. If a safe cigarette was developed, I would never quit. As it is, I should really quit before my mid 30's.
-Why isn't there a safe cigarette? With all the mind boggling advancements in the 20th century, one would think this one should be a simple development, if not extremely profitable. Like electric cars and solar panels. O wait... nevermind.
-If I was to quit, what am I supposed to bo after S E X? Cuddle? ughh..
- picking on ciggarette dangers is like picking on Nike's for sweatshop violations. A little too easy in a much more complex world. Corn Syrup for example.....
-Corn syrup! This one scares me more. why is this garbage in 95% of american food products? When did catchup divorce tomatoes and become flavoured corn syrup? Americans aren't as lazy as their reputation. They are fat because the poisoned food supply. If you live in states, try grocery shopping without getting anything with corn syrup in it. Really really hard. Thank you Coca Cola for a wonderful sugar substitute discovery, and government for wonderfully unnecessary wheat industry subsidies. Too bad corn syrup has no smell. The nose detectives would be on top of it for sure.
-Here in Brooklyn the smoke ban came into affect couple of years ago. OK. I agree. My habit shouldn't be someone else's problem. Nonsmokers in Brooklyn bars deserve non smoking environment. Both of them.
-With the smoke ban in, some establishments now smell like armpits and feet. Kind of adictive eventually.
- The smoking bans should have been a little more flexible. Especially in cold climates. We poor saps are risking pneumonia in cold months for a simple fix. Horrible.
-Non-smokers are generally more boring people. They are, ironically, a lot more habitual in their lifestyles. But I have nothing against you at all. I appologise if my habit has ever given you grief. I'll try harder. But the ANTI-smoking crowd really buggs me. Do everyone a favour and kill yourself. I've seen you around offices, social and private spaces. Your existance is based on complaining. If it's not the bananas, then it's the monkeys. Perfume makes your eyes sting, flashing lights give you seizures, noise gives you migranes, sight of brown color gives you uncontrollable bowel movements. With appologies to ANTI-smokers who've lost a loved one, you guys need to relax a little. Everything fun is life is bad for you.
-For all fellow smokers a friendly reminder: make sure you get plenty of vitamin C. Tobacco serriously depletes that stuff, and you end up with a lot more common colds then our healthier friends. You need at least 600% to 1000% of daily recommended intake, and no, vitmin supplements are not the answer. Nor apple cider or vodka/orange.
another threat from smoking (Score:5, Interesting)
Seth
Re:Still Safe? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm a very easygoing person, but I don't stand for allowing other people to hurt me. That's where I draw the line, and this is crossing it.
Re:Rather than a 'Safe Cigarette' (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Still Safe? (Score:3, Interesting)
Ok, so I'm stimulating the economy. You've made my point very eloquently for me.
Smokers tend to die early into their retirement. They (those that die) don't draw from the pension fund they contribute to for their entire working life. Also, for every "lost" smoker, there are five cigarette company employees who have jobs.
Smoking is one of the few vices I currently enjoy. Depending on how puritanical you want to be, I'm sure I could find a dozen things about your lifestyle that are of little to no benefeit. So what? I smoke, I'll die somewhere between 60 and 80. If I don't smoke, in all likelyhood I'll die somewhere between 60 and 80. I could also get hit by a bus, be shot/stabbed, or fall to a terminal illness in the next 5 years. People in perfect health die suddenly all the time. I'd rather enjoy life than count calories and inspect my HEPA filters.
Smoking is something I enjoy, and yes, that I am addicted to. That you are so pompous as to condemn me for it speaks volumes for your character. Live and let live. If you don't like smokers, don't associate with them. Fin.
Re:Still Safe? Never safe (Score:3, Interesting)
Judging by the context of this thread, it sounds as if you're opposed to smokers lighting up outside. Is that correct? If so, either purchase a breathing apparatus, stop going outside, or lighten up. The outdoors is a big place, and there are a lot of toxic fumes far worse than factories (like the tens of millions of cars in North America) that create odorous/toxic gasses. If you have a problem with a smoker in the outdoors, stand upwind or stand away.
A hint for you; so many non-smokers believe they have the right to a 100 metre smoke free radius around them at all times. This is simply not the case. These types tend to be the ones who demand (not ask) smokers to butt-out NOW! This will accomplish nothing more than starting an argument. If you don't want someone smoking around you, perhaps at a bus stop you were at first, if you can't avoid being in the smoke ask the person nicely if they wouldn't mind moving away or butting out. Sometimes you will get a hostile response, or ignored, but smokers being humans too; you'll often get a positive response.
Nobody likes to be told what to do, especially by strangers. Regardless of your medical condition, keep that in mind next time you demand something of another human being.