“A Safer Way to Smoke?”

“A Safer Way to Smoke?”

Joel
Joined: 18 Dec 2008, 23:57

25 Aug 2000, 21:18 #1

"A Safer Way to Smoke?"Smokers are always looking for ways to reduce the health risks of smoking. Unfortunately, most techniques used to reduce the risk don't work, and, in many cases, may actually increase the dangers of smoking. Probably the most popular method of risk reduction is switching to low tar and nicotine cigarettes. If people only smoked to perpetuate a simple habit, low tar and nicotine cigarettes would probably reduce the dangers of smoking. Unfortunately, the necessity to smoke is not continuance of a habit but rather maintenance of an addiction. Switching to a low tar and nicotine cigarette makes it difficult for a smoker to reach and maintain his normal required level of nicotine. The smoker will probably develop some sort of compensatory smoking pattern. Compensatory behaviors include smoking more cigarettes, smoking them further down, inhaling deeper, or holding the smoke down longer.

By doing one or a combination of these behaviors, the smoker will reach similar levels of tar and nicotine in his system as when he smoked his old brand, but, in the process, he may increase the amount of other potent poisons beyond what was delivered by his old cigarettes. Low tar and nicotine cigarettes often have higher concentrations of other dangerous poisons. By increasing consumption, substantially greater amounts of these poisons are taken into the system, thereby increasing his risk of diseases associated with these chemicals. One such poison, found in higher quantities in many low tar and nicotine cigarettes, is carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide is one of the major factors contributing to the high incidence of heart and circulatory diseases in smokers. Also, to give flavor to the low tar and nicotine cigarettes, many additional additives and flavor enhancers are used. Tobacco companies are not required to disclose what the chemical additives are, but the medical community suspects that many of these additives are carcinogenic (cancer producing) and may actually be increasing the smoker's risk of tobacco-related cancers.

The filter at the end of cigarettes also may make a difference in how much poison a smoker takes in. Some filters are more effective than others, but, again, a smoker will generally alter the way he smokes rendering many of the protective actions of the filters useless. Some cigarettes have holes inserted around the perimeter of the filter permitting more air to be inhaled with the tars and gasses of the cigarette. Theoretically, this lowers the amount of the actual tobacco smoke being inhaled. But, a smoker will normally find these cigarettes difficult to inhale and cannot get the amount of nicotine necessary to satisfy the craving. In response, he may smoke more or may discover an even more innovative way to interfere with the filter's protective action. Many times a smoker will learn how to put the cigarettes a little deeper into his mouth and seal his lips around the ventilation holes, thus decreasing the filter's efficiency. I have even encountered smokers in clinics who put tape around these holes because they found the cigarette easier to inhale and generally tasted better. In the process, they inactivated the semiprotective mechanism of the filter. Their attempts at making their smoking safer were simply an inconvenience and a waste of time. Filters could be developed that would take out all of the nicotine, but, unfortunately, in order to satisfy the addiction, most smokers would give themselves a hernia trying to inhale.

One last method of risk reduction worth mentioning is vitamin supplements. The body's ability to utilize Vitamin C is impaired by smoking. When some smokers learn this, they start taking supplemental Vitamin C. But vitamin C acidifies the urine, resulting in the body accelerating the excretion rate of nicotine. In response, the smoker may smoke extra cigarettes. In the process, he will probably destroy the extra vitamin C and increase his exposure to all of the poisonous chemicals found in tobacco smoke.

Almost every method of making smoking safer is a farce. There is only one way to totally reduce the deadly effects of smoking, and that is, simply, not to smoke. Only then will your chances of diseases such as heart disease, cancer and emphysema be reduced to the level of nonsmokers. And to keep your risk at these low levels, only one method is necessary-NEVER TAKE ANOTHER PUFF!
Reply

Joel
Joined: 18 Dec 2008, 23:57

25 Aug 2000, 21:20 #2




Edited this post on March 20, 2016 to include the new video above.

[font=ARIAL, GEORGIA, 'TIMES NEW ROMAN', TIMES, SERIF]Video discusses how techniques that smokers take to reduce the risks posed by smoking  sometimes results in more dangerous smoking patterns.[/font]
[font=ARIAL, GEORGIA, 'TIMES NEW ROMAN', TIMES, SERIF]
[/font]

[font=ARIAL, GEORGIA, 'TIMES NEW ROMAN', TIMES, SERIF]Related videos:[/font]
[font=ARIAL, GEORGIA, 'TIMES NEW ROMAN', TIMES, SERIF]
[/font]

[font=ARIAL, GEORGIA, 'TIMES NEW ROMAN', TIMES, SERIF]Extreme nicotine tolerance[/font]
[font=ARIAL, GEORGIA, 'TIMES NEW ROMAN', TIMES, SERIF]The Palmolive bottle demonstration[/font]
[font=ARIAL, GEORGIA, 'TIMES NEW ROMAN', TIMES, SERIF]Why do smokers smoke[/font]
[font=ARIAL, GEORGIA, 'TIMES NEW ROMAN', TIMES, SERIF]Our views on the need for harm reduction[/font]


Original post from August of 2000:

Posted this since I saw so many responses in the string of what brand did people smoke. In there I saw a few people talking about how at one time they switched brands, sometimes for health implications. Thought this would give a little insight to the futility of switching compared to the real gains of quitting.

Joel
Last edited by Joel on 20 Mar 2016, 13:56, edited 1 time in total.
Reply

Joel
Joined: 18 Dec 2008, 23:57

13 Nov 2001, 18:10 #3

For Hal:

For anyone thinking that reducing carcinogens can render a cigarette "safe," it is crucial that everyone understands that more people die from cardiovascular implications from smoking than those who die from cancer from smoking. The only safe cigarettes are the ones that are locked in a safe that you have no combination to, no key to, and absolutely no way to get to. The only way cigarettes will cause you no further harm is as long as you never take another puff!

Joel
Reply

Joel
Joined: 18 Dec 2008, 23:57

14 Nov 2001, 05:21 #4

Hello again KerBer:

The concept of taking extra Vitamin C to help minimize the smoking risks is flawed. First, if the person does increase their intake of nicotine in response to the extra Vitamin C acidification effect, the extra cigarettes will destroy the extra vitamin C. Then, the idea of using vitamin C to protect a person from the dangers of smoking is only taking into consideration certain risks that Vitamin C may or may not really help, the evidence is not very conclusive. But as far as heart disease, there is no evidence that I know of that shows Vitamin C having any protective factor, and heart and circulatory diseases are actually the greatest risk that a smoker is facing.

Also, the specific condition you inquired about is often directly smoking related and will often go away once smoking is terminated, or at least let the available treatments work more effectively than if smoking were continued. I think I have some specific articles here at Freedom on the related conditions you asked about, I'll try to bring them up later for you.
Reply

kris71780 ( Bronze )
Joined: 09 Jan 2009, 00:18

27 Jun 2002, 22:36 #5

Thank you Joel ImageImage (thats a TWO thumbs up) ...YOU ROCK MAN!!!! Image
Kris71780
Last edited by kris71780 ( Bronze ) on 30 Jun 2009, 00:42, edited 1 time in total.
Reply

Joel
Joined: 18 Dec 2008, 23:57

19 Jul 2002, 20:21 #6

I saw where a new member wrote that she was motivated because of a neighbor having an adverse health effect from cigarettes that were even lighter than hers. I thought she would appreciate this article.
Reply

Joel
Joined: 18 Dec 2008, 23:57

20 Nov 2002, 22:36 #7

A newer member just put up a link to a news site with the following article. We have a strict policy at Freedom about posting articles or links to other sites without getting prior approval from Freedom's Management. Accordingly I deleted the post. I am however going to place the article below. It really does cover the issue talked about here in this article on the real risks of smoking what many people considered "Safer Cigarettes."

But the article spins off into other issues that could very easily be used to spark debate on the motives of a company, political issues surrounding tobacco, legal interpretation about cigarette usage, and other controversies that we are not going to debate on the board. Our Mission Statement and thread on Diversions goes into detail of why we don't want to take board time spinning off on controversial issues regarding smoking. In order to maintain clear focus we try to cover topics here that are beyond controversy. Those topics are what we know today to be the accepted overall dangers surrounding smoking, a thorough understanding of nicotine addiction, the fact that our members have come to the point that they no longer want nicotine controlling their lives and have decided that we are offering them a site that fits into their basic belief is that their best chance of success now is that they are finally getting nicotine eradicated from their systems, and that they are totally one hundred percent committed that from this point forward they will never take another puff!

Joel




[/size][/size][/size][/font]



The article:
Warning on 'light' cigarettes
Philip Morris includes cautionary leaflet
By Gordon Fairclough


THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Nov. 20 - Coming soon to a convenience store near you: the first of about 130 million packs of Philip Morris cigarettes with a special message for smokers stuck on the back.

THE LEAFLET tucked under the cellophane wrap isn't a promotion enticing people to buy more Marlboros, Merits, or Parliaments. It's an extended warning that "light" and "ultra light" cigarettes are no safer than regular smokes.

In it, Philip Morris Cos. says that the tar and nicotine levels included in all cigarette ads aren't necessarily good indicators of how much of those substances smokers actually inhale. The company also tells smokers: "You should not assume" that so-called low-tar cigarettes are "less harmful than 'full flavor' cigarette brands or that smoking such cigarette brands will help you quit smoking."

PUBLIC-HEALTH PRESSURE

For a limited time, the pamphlet will be put on every pack of "light," "ultra light," "mild" or "medium" cigarettes Philip Morris makes for sale in the U.S., and should reach about 86% of the smokers who buy those styles of its cigarettes, the company says.

Philip Morris's new-found desire to reach out so aggressively to its customers with this cautionary message comes as the company faces growing pressure from public-health advocates who say that descriptive terms such as "light" and "low-tar" are misleading and should be banned altogether.

Advertisement

The company's critics say that its current efforts are merely a pre-emptive strike designed to stave off more stringent limits on its marketing practices. "It's nothing more than a slick PR gesture designed to avoid more rigorous, needed regulation," says Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a Washington advocacy group. Philip Morris's leaflet is not nearly enough to "undo the damage that decades of marketing light and low-tar cigarettes has caused," he says.

Michael Pfeil, a spokesman for Philip Morris, says the message about low-tar cigarettes is part of the company's "continuing effort to share with adult smokers information about the health risks of smoking." Mr. Pfeil adds: "It's the responsible thing to do to more broadly disseminate that information."

Late last year, the National Cancer Institute issued a report concluding that smokers who switch to low-tar cigarettes from regular smokes receive no health benefit (See release). In part, that's because smokers tend to take bigger, more frequent puffs of light cigarettes in order to inhale more nicotine. The report also said smokers, many of whom do think low-tar cigarettes are safer, had been misled by ads for light cigarettes.

Light cigarettes took off in popularity and production in the 1970s, with advertising then targeted at people worried about the health effects of smoking and thinking about quitting. A pitch for True cigarettes used at the time by Loews Corp.'s Lorillard Tobacco unit: "Considering all I'd heard, I decided to either quit or smoke True. I smoke True."

The NCI report has fueled calls in the U.S. for the government to stop cigarette companies from using words such as "light" and "mild" to describe their brands. The European Union already has passed a law that will bar use of such terms starting next year. And a blue-ribbon committee in Canada has recommended that country, too, ban them.

After the NCI report was released, the major U.S. tobacco companies didn't take any immediate action. But one small manufacturer, Star Scientific Inc. removed the "light" moniker from one of its brands as a test. Star says it's too soon to speak definitively about the results of its test, but early indications are that sales of the cigarettes have declined somewhat.

LEGAL TROUBLES

Philip Morris and other cigarette makers face legal challenges from people who allege that they were deceived by tobacco companies' marketing of light cigarettes. An Oregon jury earlier this year hit Philip Morris with $150.2 million in damages in the case of a woman who died after smoking low-tar Merit cigarettes. The jurors found, among other things, that Philip Morris had made false claims that light cigarettes were safer. Philip Morris is appealing the verdict.

The huge leaflet drop is also a part of Philip Morris's ongoing good-corporate-citizen campaign. This month the company has put 15.8 million inserts in newspapers across the country that discuss issues ranging from the health consequences of cigarette use to quitting smoking and second-hand smoke.

In September, Philip Morris also petitioned the Federal Trade Commission, asking the agency to revise its rules on tar and nicotine disclosures, in part to lay out definitions of what constitutes "light" and "ultra light" cigarettes so the use of those terms will be explicitly allowed. Among other things, the company said the FTC should require cigarette makers to include disclaimers in their ads for low-tar cigarettes, suggesting messages such as: "The amount of tar delivered by any cigarettes depends on how a person smokes the cigarette."

But Philip Morris argued in its filing that the FTC should not bar tobacco companies from continuing to use terms such as "light" and "mild" in describing cigarettes. Such terms, the company said, "provide information relating to differences in taste" among cigarettes.

The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids' Mr. Myers says he thinks Philip Morris's new push is "another sign that Philip Morris intends to move aggressively after the elections" to try to set an agenda for tobacco regulation in Washington that will advance its interests. Philip Morris has been lobbying Congress for nearly three years to give the FDA jurisdiction over tobacco products because it thinks business would be more predictable with a clear set of regulations. But Mr. Myers vowed that he and his colleagues would fight to block any bill that they think is too weak.

At the moment, protecting its ability to market light and low-tar cigarettes seems to be at the top of Philip Morris's list. The company and other cigarette makers have invested a lot of money in light cigarettes. Low-tar cigarettes now account for more than 60% of the market, and the companies are loath to give up the powerful identifying words they have spent years burning into smokers' minds. If they lose the battle, executives cling to the hope that smokers are sufficiently programmed to order by color, asking for "Marlboro Golds" even if the word "light" is expunged.

Copyright © 2002 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Last edited by Joel on 27 May 2010, 18:25, edited 2 times in total.
Reply

Joel
Joined: 18 Dec 2008, 23:57

09 Dec 2002, 12:09 #8

Cutting Down on Smoking Won't Cut Death Risk
Fri December 6, 2002 05:16 PM ET
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Heavy smokers hoping to stave off respiratory illness or death by cutting down on the number of cigarettes they smoke may want to rethink their choice and quit altogether, according to new study findings from Denmark. Significantly reducing the number of cigarettes smoked did not appear to have any long-term benefit in terms of death risk compared to not cutting down at all, according to the report published in the December issue of the American Journal of Epidemiology.

In the current study, Dr. Nina S. Godtfredsen of Copenhagen University Hospital and colleagues assessed the cause of death for nearly 20,000 people over a 15-year period. The investigators compared heavy smokers (15 or more cigarettes a day) who reduced the number of cigarettes they smoked by at least half during the study but didn't quit, with smokers who did quit, as well as people who continued to be heavy smokers. The researchers also looked at consistent light smokers, who smoked 14 cigarettes or less daily.

Heavy smokers who cut their cigarette intake by half saw no reduction in deaths from any cause during the study period. Quitters, on the other hand, had a 35% lower risk of death from all causes than those who continued to smoke heavily, while light smokers' death risk was 25% lower.

And quitters cut their risk of death from tobacco-related cancer by 64%, while there was no significant difference in mortality from such cancers for those who reduced their tobacco intake.

The researchers also found no difference in respiratory disease or mortality from cardiovascular disease between people who reduced their smoking and those who continued to smoke heavily.

The authors note that the study is the first, to their knowledge, to investigate from a prospective point of view the question of whether reducing cigarette smoking can cut mortality risk.

SOURCE: American Journal Epidemiology 2002;156:994-1001.
Reply

Joel
Joined: 18 Dec 2008, 23:57

26 Feb 2003, 07:01 #9

Studies Show Bidis And Smoking Products Are No Safer Than Conventional Cigarettes Studies published over the past several months disprove claims that products such as additive-free cigarettes, bidis, and novel cigarette-like devices are less toxic than conventional cigarettes.

A study published in the December 2002 issue of the journal Nicotine and Tobacco Research examined the effects of bidis--hand-rolled cigarettes from India--and additive-free American Spirit cigarettes. Bidis are popular with adolescents because many perceive them to be less of a risk to health than regular cigarettes, and because they are manufactured in a variety of flavors, such as chocolate or root beer.

For the study, lead investigator Dr. Wallace Pickworth from the NIDA Intramural Research Program asked 10 volunteers to smoke an unfiltered, additive-free American Spirit cigarette, a strawberry-flavored bidi, a non-flavored bidi, and one of the subjects' own brand of conventional cigarette.

After smoking the American Spirit cigarette or either type of bidi, the participants' blood nicotine levels were higher than when they smoked their own brand. Higher amounts of carbon monoxide were exhaled after smoking the strawberry-flavored bidi, but exhaled carbon monoxide levels were lower for the American Spirit cigarette and the unflavored bidi than for the volunteers' own cigarette brands.

Cigarette Products Marketed As Less Toxic Found to be Ineffective

A second study, published in the November 2002 issue of Nicotine and Tobacco Research, evaluated a clinical laboratory model for assessing whether potential reduced-exposure products (PREP) do reduce smokers' exposure to lethal constituents of smoke and whether they adequately suppress withdrawal symptoms. In this study, Philip Morris' Accord and R. J. Reynolds' Eclipse, both marketed as less harmful smoking systems, were used as examples.

The investigators found that, relative to normal cigarettes, Accord was less effective at suppressing withdrawal and produced minimal carbon monoxide boost despite the fact that when using Accord, smokers took bigger and longer puffs than with conventional cigarettes. Eclipse fully suppressed withdrawal and increased carbon monoxide levels by 30 percent. Accord delivered about one-half and Eclipse about three-fourths the nicotine of the subjects' own cigarette brand.

The researchers concluded that neither Accord nor Eclipse is likely to be effective in reducing exposure to the harmful constituents of cigarette smoke.

Dr. Thomas Eissenberg from the Virginia Commonwealth University headed the research team.

A study conducted by the same research team published in the December 2002 issue of the journal Tobacco Control, was similar to the Eclipse/Accord study, but used another product known as Advance. Advance is marketed as a product that will help smokers reduce their intake of some carcinogens and toxic gases.

The investigators found that Advance produced similar withdrawal suppression and heart rate increase, 11 percent less carbon monoxide, and 25 percent more nicotine when compared to the light or ultra-light cigarette brands smoked by 20 volunteers.

WHAT IT MEANS: Despite manufacturers' claims and the perception of some users, low-smoke smoking devices, bidis, and non-additive cigarettes touted to reduce the harmful components of cigarette smoke are not effective, and may not reduce the death and disease associated with tobacco use. On the contrary, some of these devices might promote heavier smoking and may introduce new risks not currently associated with cigarette smoking, including the potential of inhaling harmful elements such as glass fibers used in the manufacture of some low-smoke products.

Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued for journalists and other members of the public. If you wish to quote any part of this story, please credit NIH/National Institute On Drug Abuse as the original source.[/size]
Reply

Joel
Joined: 18 Dec 2008, 23:57

12 Apr 2003, 01:41 #10

Smoking Rates Hold Steady in U.S.: CDC
Thu April 10, 2003 04:25 PM ET


NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - The number of U.S. adults who regularly puff away on cigarettes is holding steady at around one in four, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported Thursday.

The agency hopes to see that number drop below 12 percent by the year 2010, as part of a national health objective to get people to kick the cigarette habit.

But based on the new study, the number of smokers in most U.S. states was fairly stable between 1996 and 2001.

Cigarette smoking is the leading preventable cause of death in the U.S. and is estimated to kill 440,000 people each year.

The current findings, published in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, are based on the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, which provided state-by-state information on the smoking habits of men and women age 18 and older.

Overall, states' smoking rates ranged from about 13 percent to 31 percent, for a median smoking rate of just over 23 percent for the whole country.

Kentucky, Oklahoma and West Virginia were home to the most current smokers, while Utah, California and Massachusetts had some of the fewest.

In addition, the CDC found that men are still out-puffing females overall, although the top smoking rate was similar for the two sexes -- nearly 32 percent for men, and 30 percent for women.

The findings do show, however, that the proportion of current smokers who said they were "some day," and not daily, smokers rose in 31 states between 1996 and 2001.

Still, CDC officials point out, one large recent study showed that cutting tobacco use in half did not make a dent in smoking-related deaths among people who continued to smoke 15 or more cigarettes a day.

"States are encouraged to implement comprehensive tobacco control programs such as those implemented in California and Massachusetts during the 1990s, which encourage smokers to stop smoking entirely," the CDC concludes.

In a separate smoking study published by the CDC Thursday, public health officials in 16 counties in southeast Georgia identified 163 restaurants that accommodate smoking and non-smoking customers with separate sections.

But beyond the separate sections, many failed to provide measures designed to limit non-smokers' exposure to secondhand smoke. For example, most had smoking and non-smoking sections adjacent to each other, and the majority had no physical barriers between the sections.

"Restaurant goers should be aware that in establishments that allow smoking, they may not be protected from secondhand smoke," the CDC advises.

SOURCE: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2003;52:303-307, 307-309.
Reply