Slashdot Mirror
Safe Cigarettes?
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?"
I thought the tobacco industry said that their products already were safe? So these would be just the same again, right?
it's still an addictive expensive drug.
"There is no safe cigarette." I think that's all we need to know.
-Palal
If you really want people to quit smoking, make them 100x more lethal, so that smoking a year will kill you. Then we'll see how many people actually have a motivation to quit.
the safer cocaine!
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
No one in my family smoked ever, I was the first. I recently "quit" because of financial reasons, no health. In terms of health, I don't see the causation connection, especially in second hand smoke.
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.
And they're DELICIOUS!
I wonder if this will have any impact on the no smoking bans we have seen in recent years?
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.
#
#\ @ ? Colonize Mars
#
And how will this even attempt to address the environmental issues concerned with smoking?
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.
Not only would it encourage people to quit, all those who were dumb enough to keep smoking would be dead quick enough not to become such a horrible drain on our medical system. Yes, I do know that cigarettes are taxed, blah blah blah.
Maybe we could comprise any make every 1000th cigarete cause instantenous death?
As an American, I am appalled at the very idea of the government spending *any* money on developing a "safer cigarette". While that move might treat the physical effects of smoking and make it a safer alternative than traditional cigarettes, it does nothing to address the fact that smokers are *addicts* with a psychological dependence on a drug. Why not put money where it's really needed: addiction recovery. Develop drugs that are more effective at helping smokers quit, put more money into social campaigns against smoking (school, television, etc)? It amazes me sometimes how we Americans will find ways to make bad things acceptable and safer if it makes us money instead of just putting a stop to its use.
Anthony Papillion
Advanced Data Concepts, Inc.
"Quality Custom Software and IT Services"
why not just make it without Nicotine? Safest thing in the world then, nobody'll want them.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
To all you puritan non-smokers, I say good luck - hope you enjoy the old folks' home!!
Haaaaaa-ha-ha-ha-ha-haaaaarggghhhhh!!!!
*cough*
Most smoking bans are not in place because of disease concerns, but rather because many people find smoke to be distracting anf foul smelling.
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.
Many of us use tobacco to mix with canabis. this makes it burn in a better way, and helps us to regulate dose...
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!
I don't think a "safer" cigarette is going to convince people not to mind others smoking in public places. Most people's immediate concern is the eye irritation and noxious odor of second hand smoke, not the long term effects. Safer isn't going to solve the problems people are first concerned with. Also, most "safer" cigarettes are safer because they have very agressive filters in them. That's something that the second hand smoke recipients cannot benefit from.
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".
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Internal memos from Philip Morris from April 1980 indicate that the tobacco companies have been fully aware of radioactivity in cigarettes for over two decades. They also knew of ways of eliminating the radioactivity, but wrote them off as a "valid but expensive point":
Furthermore, switching to indirect fire curing would eliminate virtually all of another carcinogen, nitrosamine, from cigarettes. Nitrosamine was previously found in BEER thanks to direct fire curing of barley. Switching to indirect fire curing of barley reduced nitrosamine in beer to indetectable levels. Yet Philip Morris makes Marlboros, cigarettes with more nitrosamine than any others in the world.
Yes, believe what Philip Morris says, because if you realized there could be a safe cigarette, it would cost them a lot of money...
Here's two simple manufacturing changes they could make which would eliminate the two most potent carcinogens from cigarettes. But I guess it's just cheaper for Philip Morris to kill their customers.
Disclaimer: I smoke, and after having tried to quit twice and turned into a raging hellbeast on account of it, I am going to wait until things are a bit more stable before I try again. Its actually quite entertaining in hindsight; there is a euphoric initial period, where all the senses that were dulled by the drug come roaring back (like pins and needles all over your body for days) followed closely by a manic depressive section, and then there is a long trudge through what can only be described as psychotic paranoia, in the true clinical sense. Small problems become niggling problems, which must be someones fault, and then these people must be taught not to make the same mistake again. Its pretty hard to keep in check.
But hold on a second there sparky, the only evidence you present is anecdotal, and for all we know you could be pulling it directly from your posterior. Let me try...
I had severe headaches since I was 18, but then I started smoking because after all the doctors couldn't help, a homeopathic practitioner mentioned it might be beneficial.
Sounds just as good as yours, and is just as pulled out of my arse. Anyway the real issue isn't so much health as it is the addictive nature of nicotine. Its a drug, that has no benefits, is toxic in every respect, and it should be just as outlawed as heroin. I recall reading somewhere that the withdrawal symptoms are actually more severe, how true that is I cannot attest to. The only reason it is allowed is because it was in common use before the laws really started to crack down on drugs.
Most smokers smoke and continue to do so because they like most people foolishly started in their rebellious teens, and are now hooked on the things well into adulthood.
So stop talking shite.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
I don't care if smoking has real or perceived benefits for anyone. But I believe in personal freedom. If *you* want to kill yourself slowly and painfully, then *you* should have every available means at your disposal to do so. Because I wouldn't like anyone to define what is best for me, I don't define to anyone else what's best for them. Smoking *is* addictive and dangerous, no question about that. But since everybody knows that by now, and smokes anyway, all we can do is watch them die. In a free society, there is no such thing as "help with force", no matter how hard some people wish there was. Restaurant owners can restrict smoking, shopping malls can, as well as airlines and taxi drivers - on their own property. I'm no smoker, but I'll sure as hell defend your right to smoke wherever non-smoking people could escape the fumes if they wanted to, the owner of the place agrees and there's no fire hazard involved. I'm more and more embarassed about how fast we give up personal freedom these days...
Ciggarrets should be taxed based on their level of health risk.
It's obvious...
That's it.
If our government weren't addicted to the $15.7 billion dollars in taxes they collect on an annual basis from cigarettes, we would get safe cigarettes in a heartbeat.
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.
The opinions in this post are ficticious. Any similarity to actual opinions, real or imagined, is purely coincidental.
We can't have safe cigarettes. If people had safe cigarettes there wouldn't be any excuse to levy massive taxes on them.
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...
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
I quit smoking 3 years ago while attending college full time and working full time at an ISP tech desk (phone support). I had smoked for about 9 years prior to that. I think if you really want to quit, you will, my (then) 3 year old girl telling me "Daddy, the cigarettes make you cough." I figured if my 3 year old can see that, I should be able to see that as well.
I set a day and time for me to quit (Friday at 17:00) and chainsmoked up to that point. At 17:00 I placed the remainder of the pack on my counter and left them there. When I had a craving, I smelled the tobacco and placed the pack back on the counter. The aches from the wonderful chemicals leaving my joints were relieved by ibuprofin. And I kept saying to myself, I have gone (insert time) without a cigarette, I will wait a few hours and get one if I need it. The mantra kept repeating, setting goals and pushing them higher and higher.
I threw the pack away three months later with the same contents as it had that Friday. Food and drinks tasted better, my newborn son's asthma went away (I smoked outside, but the smoke comes in on your hair, hands, and clothing), and my wallet was fuller.
I feel so much better now that I would suggest quitting to anyone. People around you will understand if you are a bit of a Hellbeast, and will forgive you if you matter to them. If they don't, screw them they don't care for you anyway.
Beware the fury of a patient man
- John Dryden
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?
right to smoke wherever non-smoking people could ESCAPE the fumes if they wanted to...
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.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Tobacco addicts endanger our lives more than by the carcinogens they exhale into the air. Their habit also is the leading cause for fire-related deaths. If you live in an apartment building and smokers also live in that building, you are depending on them not to fall asleep with a cigarrette burning in an ashtray on their beds. It's really common for an entire building to go up in flames due to unsupervised cigarrettes. So, yeah, smoking is a pretty significant threat to non-smokers.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
He said the difference was mainly due to nicotine in tobacco, whereas cannabis may inhibit cancer because of the presence of the chemical THC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4350642.stm
Presumably you can back up your own statement?
Well, first off, breathing smoke-free air is not a "right" at least last time I looked at the bill of rights.
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.