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?"

Comments

Still Safe?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the tobacco industry said that their products already were safe? So these would be just the same again, right?

Re:Still Safe?

[cas2000]

> The ones spewing poisonous disgusting toxins in public,

you're right - cars, trucks, and other hydrocarbon-fuel based engines and generators should be banned from public spaces.

Re:Still Safe?

[cas2000]

> So your sarcastic comment is actually true.

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?

[Doc Ruby]

But the free market doesn't work in this case - as in so many others. Here in NYC, as with elsewhere I've lived that banned smoking in restaurants and bars - all the "status quo" people said it would kill business. It didn't. People were in a rut; the smoking minority made it worse for everyone, even impeding people from spending more time in bars because of the smoke. When the majority of people finally banded together to stand up to the junkies and forced them to stop smoking inside, the result was better places for eating and drinking. Smokers continued to frequent the places for those reasons, and made concessions to their addiction by smoking outside. The doomsayers were wrong - though it might have decreased cigarette sales. There were many reports here in NYC in retrospective reporting, of smokers saying the ban was what finally gave them the discipline to quit. So I suspect lots of the doomsaying was paid propaganda from the tobacco pushers, including bars and restaurants that sold cigarettes.

Smoking bans not only make public places healthier, they also demonstrate very simple ways in which the free market doesn't effectively model choice or social preferences. Especially when the markets are controlled by minorities with deeply vested practices, irrational needs and a budget to promote detrimental group behavior. For clues, note how expensive smoking is in product and healthcare, and how many people behave uneconomically within the algebra of junkie need.

tobacco still sucks

[hector_uk]

it's still an addictive expensive drug.

Re:tobacco still sucks

[germansausage]

It makes you cough, stink and die. What's not to like?

Re:tobacco still sucks

[UttBuggly]

" It makes you cough, stink and die. What's not to like? " Absolutely...and does so very effectively and insidiously. Nicotine is amazingly good at the addictive-formation onslaught to the human brain. From personal experience, I can tell you that nicotine is a life-long template in your brain whether you're smoking or not. I smoked 22 years. And I wasn't a "light" smoker. 2-3 packs a day, more when I was drinking alcohol. I quit in 1994. I was thrilled to redsicover the taste of food, drink, and the air in general. I got into incredible physical shape and life was good. I got remarried in 2004 and discovered the wife was "a social smoker". I had only ever known two kinds of people, smokers and non-smokers. I had no idea a SMALL fraction of people get addicted to nicotine so slightly, that they APPEAR to be able to "take or leave" cigarettes. And, to top it off, she smoked my favorite brand. A few months ago, I found myself smoking 2-3 cigarettes every evening after dinner. Right up to the second I lit one up, I'd actually think "I won't be smoking any more of THESE" and do it anyway. I finally quit again 4 weeks ago as has the wife. Nicotine sucks.........

Phillip Morris says...

[Palal]

"There is no safe cigarette." I think that's all we need to know.

We need deadlier cigarettes

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:We need deadlier cigarettes

[quantaman]

I agree! While we are at it, why not:

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:We need deadlier cigarettes

[Lillesvin]

[...] 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. 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:We need deadlier cigarettes

[MarcQuadra]

Sure thing, then we'll replace ethanol with methanol so all the evil drinkers go blind or die, followed by poisoning bacon and fast food! Surely this will make the world a better place for the rest of us!

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:We need deadlier cigarettes

[quantaman]

[...] we simply made war so deadly with nukes that people stopped having them because is was MAD...

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.

Smoke isn't safe.

[Rayaru]

This quote from the article says it best:

"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."

Cause or Risk Factor? (warning pro-smoking)

[dada21]

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.

Re:Cause or Risk Factor? (warning pro-smoking)

[Alioth]

Your 80 year old doctor might smoke two packs a day, but my mother died age 48 of smoking related disease. She had a healthy diet, too. You can't draw a conclusion on the safety of smoking from a sample of two (you and your doctor).

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:Cause or Risk Factor? (warning pro-smoking)

[veeoh]

>By the way, I ran a half marathon while smoking 10 cigarettes,

All at the same time?

Re:Cause or Risk Factor? (warning pro-smoking)

[zerus]

Eventhough I abhor smoking (volunteering as med physicist til the ph.d is done), I still think that government mandated smoking bans in public places aren't right. It should be up to the business owner to decide to allow smoking or not. If people like you and me don't want to patronize a restaurant because they allow smoking, then the business owner loses our money. If enough people decide not to go there, then the business owner will disallow smoking to bring back business. It's the free market that should decide the ban on smoking, not the government. People have a right to do with their lives and property as they please. If people want to be morons and smoke, it's their decision since it's their lives, just as it's my decision not to smoke. If you choose to go to a bar, you're choosing to go where people smoke. You don't have to go there, because you have as much an option of going somewhere else that doesn't allow smoking. If you still decide to go because you think it's such a great place, then it reverts back to a good old cost-benefit tradeoff where you place having fun at the moment over your future health. It's your decision since no one is holding a gun to your head to go there, whereas a government mandated ban is essentially holding a gun to the heads of the business owners telling them they cannot allow smoking. Smokers have just as much right to congregate together and smoke as does anyone else.

Re:Cause or Risk Factor? (warning pro-smoking)

[slamb]

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. [...] 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.

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.

They've had these for YEARS!!!

[ferrellcat]

And they're DELICIOUS!

bans?

[Janek Kozicki]

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.

Re:bans?

[Surt]

Actually, most of the bans were built on the premise that the smoke was a health hazard to bystanders (especially employees). Having a genuinely health safe cigarette would reduce the bans to being about the bad odors, and would probably get them overturned in most of the places they have been established. Thankfully, however, even these 'safe' cigarrettes still pose a nice substantial health risk to bystanders, so this will have pretty much no impact.

Re:bans?

[Charcharodon]

As long as it goes hand in hand with a lift on the ban of punching people in the face for smoking near you, I see no reason why smoking bans couldn't be lifted.

Re:bans?

[Homology]

Also, TFA states that part of the "safer cigarette" thing is better filters, which doesn't help those inhaling second hand smoke. So, the smoker inhales less deadly stuff, but the person standing beside them - still inhaling poison.

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.

Environment

[GenKreton]

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.

Re:Environment

[dr_labrat]

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.

Yeah. Those damn deer should be kept well away from roads and sidewalks... They are a nuisance.

Just like the USA...

[CaptainTux]

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.

Rather than a 'Safe Cigarette'

[rsilvergun]

why not just make it without Nicotine? Safest thing in the world then, nobody'll want them.

I smoke like a trooper

[Dominic Burns]

To all you puritan non-smokers, I say good luck - hope you enjoy the old folks' home!!

Haaaaaa-ha-ha-ha-ha-haaaaarggghhhhh!!!!

*cough*

Re:tobacco still sucks - canabis

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:Doubtful

[v1]

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".

Philip Morris LIES

[ikewillis]

Of course Philip Morris says there's no safe cigarette. They don't want to invest the money to make their cigarettes safer...

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":

That phosphate fertilizer (specifically superphosphate fertilizer) contains natural radioactivity is a well established fact.

Natural uranium accumulates in the phosphate rock and has been shown to substitute for calcium in the rock structure. Uranium and its daughters are thus carried through the mining and manufacturing process and appear in the commercial product. Soils to which these products are applied show an increase in radioactivity over that naturally present and this increase is a function of the rate of application and the number of years that the fertilizers have been used.

M. E. Counts has shown that the specific [radio]activity [...] increases as the particle size of the superphosphate fertilizer decreases. Thus the smaller particles, which would be more likely to be made airborne by normal farming practices, would be expected to settle out on the tobacco leaves during the growing season and/or be more readily taken up by the plant root system.

210Pb and 210Po are present in tobacco and smoke. The Martell "Hot Particle Theory" has been addressed in the past and has apparently lost popularity in the scientific community (lack of recent publicity in this field). For -particles from 210Po to be the cause of lung cancers is unlikely due to the amount of radioactivity of a particular energy necessary for induction Evidence to date, however, does not allow one to state that this is an impossibility. (Ed: and of course, more recent evidence says just the opposite)

The recommendation of using ammonium phosphate instead of calcium phosphate as fertilizer is probably a valid but expensive point. What Martell appears to be suggesting is the purification of phosphate rock to obtain P2O5 or H3PO4 free of calcium (uranium and daughters) and inert materials. Preparation of ammonium phosphate for fertilizer would then yield a product greatly reduced in or free of the natural radioactivity present in the parent phosphate rock.

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.

Re:The difference is...

[phoenix321]

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...

Re:The Racket

[MasterOfDisaster]

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.

Damn Ex-Smoker words below

[GeekyMike]

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.

Re:No, no, no

[Frogbert]

Next time you want to quit smoking here is my tip:

When I first tried to quit I was just like you psycotic. I realised I needed to mellow out so the second time I tried I made sure I masturbated... heaps. It kept me calm, mellow and collected and was fun at the same time.

Excuse me, smokers can force smokers to "escape"?

[coyote-san]

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.

another threat from smoking

[SethJohnson]

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