“A Safer Way to Smoke?”

“A Safer Way to Smoke?”

Joined: December 18th, 2008, 11:57 pm

August 25th, 2000, 9:18 pm #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!
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 18th, 2008, 11:57 pm

August 25th, 2000, 9:20 pm #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 March 20th, 2016, 1:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 18th, 2008, 11:57 pm

November 13th, 2001, 6:10 pm #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
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 18th, 2008, 11:57 pm

November 14th, 2001, 5:21 am #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.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 9th, 2009, 12:18 am

June 27th, 2002, 10:36 pm #5

Thank you Joel (thats a TWO thumbs up) ...YOU ROCK MAN!!!!
Kris71780
Last edited by kris71780 ( Bronze ) on June 30th, 2009, 12:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 18th, 2008, 11:57 pm

July 19th, 2002, 8:21 pm #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.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 18th, 2008, 11:57 pm

November 20th, 2002, 10:36 pm #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 May 27th, 2010, 6:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 18th, 2008, 11:57 pm

December 9th, 2002, 12:09 pm #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.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 18th, 2008, 11:57 pm

February 26th, 2003, 7:01 am #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]
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 18th, 2008, 11:57 pm

April 12th, 2003, 1:41 am #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.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 18th, 2008, 11:57 pm

May 13th, 2003, 10:54 pm #11

I saw a questioned posed today about menthol cigarettes, more about whether or not they were harder to quit than regular non-mentholated cigarettes. As far as I am concerned all the menthol is is a flavor additive and does not likely play much of a role in withdrawal issues. What made me want to attach a comment to this string is since the earliest days of my doing programs I heard so many smokers who were afraid of smoking menthol cigarettes because of how dangerous they were.

Here are people who are smoking a product containing over 4,000 chemicals, hundreds of them poisonous, 43 known to be cancer causing agents, many of them with long scary chemical names that the smoker couldn't even pronounce or spell, and smoking them in a form that is known to cause heart disease, cancer, emphysema, and a host of other illnesses. In fact, smoking will end up killing half of the people who do it and also ends up impairing and maybe even crippling many people who it does not kill--and these people were afraid of smoking menthol cigarettes because they were dangerous!

I always saw a tremendous irony in this. These seem to be people who live in fear of certain issues, whether they are rational fears of not. Well now all these people have to fear from cigarettes is relapsing back to them. Any dangers posed by future smoking are totally avoidable as long as these people stick with their commitment to never take another puff!

Joel
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 9th, 2009, 8:37 pm

May 28th, 2003, 4:44 am #12

I wondered what the little booklets were, thanks.

Carolyn
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 18th, 2008, 11:59 pm

June 27th, 2003, 1:53 am #13

Hi everybody
I brought this one up due to an item on the news today,an american company is bringing a product to the uk and it is being called a safer cigarette,the filter is said to have more protection and has claimed this will stop the onset of emphysema, a group over here called ash [anti smoking group].have questioned this and also pointed out that cancer and many other problems will still remain.There is plenty of proof in joels library and in our postings about the damage cigarette smoking does to your health,but i wish the smoker could get into their head is the fact that a nicotine free life is better,you will be free from the slavery of having to feed that addiction,any lurkers out there if you hav,nt got the health message yet could you please stop looking for safer ways to smoke and starting looking for a better way to live,and that is freedom from constant irritation of nicotine stimulation and nicotine withdrawal,a nicotine free life is better and all of us here are living proof.
Rickdabler 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 15hrs happily nicotine free.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 18th, 2008, 11:57 pm

June 29th, 2003, 11:25 pm #14

I am pretty sure that scientists can come up with a filter that will block all the other harmful chemicals that come in from tobacco and just allow a minute amount of nicotine in with every drag. This product would by definition be "safer." There is one problem though that this filter would pose to its users that normal cigarettes don't. A lot of the users will get hernias from the strain of trying to **** out the real amount of nicotine that his or her body is still demanding.

The only way to stop the body's need for nicotine is to never allow nicotine back into the body, and that is as simple as simply knowing to never use any product designed to deliver nicotine into the body again and as far as for tobacco products, to simply know to never take another chew or dip and as far as for burning tobacco products, to simply know to never take another puff!

Joel
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 18th, 2008, 11:57 pm

August 3rd, 2003, 8:16 pm #15

I thought of this one while putting together a response for the nicotine water product that I think is going to be introduced. I think the title for that product could easily be, "A safer way to get addicted." Again, the message for our readers should not be to look for a safer way to use a potentially deadly and addictive product. Rather it needs to be how to stay free of the iron clad grip that nicotine once held on all of our members. The ONLY way to guarantee that nicotine can never control you this way again is to never deliver nicotine via any nicotine delivery system devised by man and as far as for smoked tobacco forms to simply know to never take another puff! Joel
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 19th, 2008, 12:10 am

May 5th, 2004, 1:14 am #16

Joel, I had to pick myself back up off the floor from laughing after reading your message 34, in particular " A lot of the users will get hernias from the strain of trying to **** out the real amount of nicotine,,," . Your message hit home. Thanks again.
Canuckben1
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 18th, 2008, 11:57 pm

September 10th, 2004, 5:01 am #17

The message for our readers should not be to look for a safer way to use a potentially deadly or addictive product. Rather it needs to be how to stay free of the iron clad grip that nicotine once held on all of our members. The ONLY way to guarantee that nicotine can never control you this way again is to never deliver nicotine via any nicotine delivery system devised by man and as far as for smoked tobacco forms to simply know to never take another puff!
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 18th, 2008, 11:57 pm

November 2nd, 2004, 4:39 am #18

A question about Eclipse Cigarettes was just raised. The following article from above talked about the product.

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]
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 18th, 2008, 11:57 pm

November 2nd, 2004, 5:01 am #19

A question about Eclipse Cigarettes was just raised. The article below mentions issues with the particular product.

I am also attaching a link to the string Nicotine Free Quest is NOT Nicotine Free in case the issue is ever raised again.

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]
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 18th, 2008, 11:57 pm

May 13th, 2005, 5:43 pm #20

Australia
Low-tar tobacco labels to be scrapped
By Lisa Pryor
The Sydney Morning Herald
May 13, 2005
Australia's two largest tobacco companies have agreed to remove words such as light and mild from cigarette packets within months after the consumer watchdog ruled that the terms trick smokers into thinking the products are better for their health.
British American Tobacco and Philip Morris have promised to remove the words from packaging and pay $8 million to fund anti-smoking campaigns and programs. The companies' brands account for 80 per cent of the Australian tobacco market.
The $8 million will be used to explain to consumers that low-tar and low-nicotine cigarettes are not necessarily healthier than full-strength cigarettes.
This was because smokers are likely to compensate for the supposed mildness by inhaling more deeply, holding smoke in the lungs longer or smoking more frequently, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission said. It said that tobacco companies had been well aware of this for more than 10 years.
Another tobacco company, Imperial Tobacco Australia, has refused to contribute cash to anti-smoking education but says it will remove the labelling from all its products from March.
The commission chairman, Graeme Samuel, said the company, which has a 20 per cent share of the Australian cigarette market and whose best-known brand is Horizon, had refused to co-operate with the commission.
The refusal was remarkable given the company made a $47.6 million profit in Australia last year and a $2.1 billion profit worldwide, he said.
"Imperial Tobacco's attitude demonstrates a significant lack of sensitivity and responsiveness to community concerns and expectations," he said.
Imperial Tobacco's head of corporate affairs, Charles Hamshaw-Thomas, said the company would not contribute to the education campaign fund because it had done nothing wrong.
"We deny any such wrongdoing," he said.
"Every packet of cigarettes we've sold has a very clear and unambiguous health warning."

Online story source link:
Copyright © 2005. The Sydney Morning Herald.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 18th, 2008, 11:57 pm

May 13th, 2005, 5:50 pm #21

Canada
No safety in light cigarettes, study finds

CP
The London Free Press
May 12, 2005
TORONTO -- Light and mild cigarettes are just as harmful as regular brands, a new study suggests.
The report by University of Montreal professors Paul Gendreau and Frank Vitaro looked at six varieties of light cigarettes from the most popular Canadian brands, Du Maurier and Players.
The researchers found nicotine levels in all six varieties were an average of five per cent higher than in regular cigarettes and out of the 44 toxins studied, only four were systematically reduced in all mild varieties.
In 2002, more than half of Canadian smokers puffed on light brands, many erroneously believing they were the healthier alternative, the paper reports.
The research is reported in the latest issue of the Canadian Journal of Public Health.
Part of the blame is assigned to the current method of testing for mild cigarettes.
Since 1991, Canada has used the International Organization for Standardization, or ISO, method of measuring tar, nicotine and other toxins in cigarettes that was developed in part by tobacco companies.
A vacuum-like machine puffs a cigarette every 60 seconds, and doesn't block perforations in the filter, which allows air to dilute the smoke by up to 83 per cent. But people don't smoke the way the machine does, the researchers said.
"Unfortunately when people smoke, they are not machines, so they block the holes with their fingers, their lips, their saliva. So at the end, they might get more smoke intake than the machine," Gendreau said yesterday.
The authors are calling for improvements to the ISO method of testing cigarettes for results more realistic to the habits and behaviours of smokers. They also want tobacco companies to list the ingredients and levels of toxins in a product, like food.

Online story source link:
Copyright © The London Free Press
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 18th, 2008, 11:57 pm

May 27th, 2005, 6:27 pm #22

For people who think additive free cigarettes must be a safer alternative.

Here is an blurb from a site that sells cigarettes describing the brand American Spirit Cigarettes:

American Spirit
Additive Free Tobacco. The Tobacco used in Natural American Spirit Cigarettes is 100% free of additives, containing only whole leaf natural tobacco... no preservatives, no reconstituted sheet tobacco, no processed stems and no expanded tobacco. Light 5 mg Tar 0.6 mg Nicotine. Regular 12 mg Tar 1.6 mg Nicotine TOBACCO SERIOUSLY DAMAGES HEALTH

Following are two articles talking about the safety and addictive quality of this very same brand:

The Tobacco Additives that Keep You Hooked by Rosie Waterhouse

Additives in cigarettes may make some brands far more addictive than others, according to research. For the first time, scientists have measured the amount of super-addictive "freebase" nicotine cigarettes deliver to the smoker. Like crack cocaine, freebase nicotine vaporises and passes rapidly through the lungs into the bloodstream. Because it reaches the brain so quickly it is thought to be more addictive than normal nicotine. The research, by a team at Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, could lead to ways of rating the addictiveness of different brands.

Scientists compared 11 brands available in America. They found that some contained 10 to 20 times higher percentages of freebase nicotine than experts had previously believed. Brands were compared with a laboratory "reference" cigarette containing 1% freebase nicotine. They varied greatly, ranging from 1% or 2% to 36% for a specialty US brand called American Spirit. Marlboro contained up to 9.6% freebase nicotine. Other well known brands included Camel (2.7%), Winston (5% to 6.2%) and Gauloises Blondes (5.7% to 7.5%).

Professor James Pankow, who led the study, reported in the journal Chemical Research in Toxicology, said: "During smoking, only the freebase form can volatise from a particle into the air in the respiratory tract. Since scientists have shown that a drug becomes more addictive when it is delivered to the brain more rapidly, freebase nicotine levels in cigarette smoke thus are at the heart of the controversy regarding the tobacco industry's use of additives like ammonia and urea, as well as blending choices in cigarette design."

A 1997 study led by Prof Pankow linked ammonia additives with increased freebase nicotine levels in cigarettes. He found that on its own, nicotine would not be very potent in the body but ammonia strips away protons from surrounding molecules including nicotine, making it more rapidly absorbed. The 1997 research confirmed assertions made by the American Food and Drug Administration that widespread use of ammonia compounds in cigarettes manufacturing was evidence that the industry manipulated the delivery of nicotine in tobacco products.

Professor Jack Henningfield, from the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, said: "It appears likely that ingredients used in modern cigarette manufacture, such as ammonia and urea, account for this addiction-enhancing effect."

Professor Pankow said that in the United States there were no formal tobacco industry or Food and Drug Administration guidelines on appropriate levels of freebase nicotine in cigarettes. But the message from the industry was that cigarettes contained only small percentages of freebase nicotine. Only additives on a permitted list from the Department of Health are allowed in cigarettes made in Britain. A spokesman for the Tobacco Manufacturers' Association in the UK said: "Cigarettes manufactured here do abide by the permitted list and may be quite different from those in America."

A spokesman for Phillip Morris, the maker of Marlboro, said: "Ammonia is a compound naturally present in tobacco leaf. Quite simply, there is no safe cigarette. No one cigarette is any more or less harmful or addictive than another. All cigarettes and their smoke are harmful and addictive. It is entirely inappropriate to start communicating to consumers that there are distinctions in terms of harm or addictiveness between various brands of cigarettes. If consumers are concerned about the harm or addictiveness of smoking they should quit."

Three men who featured as the most famous character in tobacco advertising - the horse-riding Marlboro Man - have died from smoking-related illnesses: David Millar Jr in 1987 from emphysema, Wayne McLaren in 1992 after lung cancer spread to his brain, and David McLean in 1995 from lung cancer.

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk 28 July 2003

Release Date: Dec. 3, 2002



ADDITIVE-FREE CIGARETTES MAY PACK A MORE TOXIC TOBACCO PUNCH

By Will O'Bryan, Staff Writer
Health Behavior News Service

Despite perceptions that additive-free cigarettes and the hand-rolled cigarettes from India called bidis may provide a less-toxic smoke than conventional cigarettes, new research suggests the opposite may be true.

Study results published in the December issue of Nicotine & Tobacco Research examine several physiological and subjective factors among regular smokers who were asked to smoke both bidis and additive-free American Spirit cigarettes in a controlled test.

"Recently, there has been an increase in the use of alternative cigarettes such as bidis, cloves and additive-free cigarettes by adolescents," said lead researcher Wallace Pickworth of the National Institute of Drug Abuse. "In the Boston area, for example, 40 percent of teenagers had smoked bidis at least once in their lifetime and 16 percent were current bidi smokers. About 13 percent of the sample thought bidis were safer than conventional cigarettes."

Aside from perceptions that they are a lesser health risk than conventional cigarettes, bidis may also be popular with adolescents because they are manufactured in a variety of flavors, such as chocolate or root beer. Bidis are also generally less expensive than cigarettes and easier for youths to purchase, Pickworth said.

For the study, Pickworth and his team asked 10 research volunteers - 24.5 years old on average and considered "healthy smokers" - to smoke an unfiltered, additive-free American Spirit cigarette, a strawberry-flavored bidi, a non-flavored bidi and one of the participants' own preferred brands of conventional cigarette.

During each session, the researchers measured participants' plasma nicotine and exhaled carbon monoxide. Researchers also recorded the length of time participants took to smoke a cigarette or bidi, and the number of puffs. After smoking, participants completed questionnaires about each product.

Results showed that two minutes after smoking the unfiltered, additive-free American Spirit cigarette or either type of bidi, participants' plasma nicotine levels were significantly higher than when they smoked their own cigarettes. The high nicotine levels lasted longest with the American Spirit cigarette.

Measured levels of exhaled carbon monoxide were less consistent. Researchers measured these levels 15 minutes after participants finished smoking each sample. Exhaled carbon monoxide levels dropped below those of the participants' own cigarette brands 15 minutes after smoking the American Spirit cigarette and the unflavored bidi. The strawberry-flavored bidi, however, left participants exhaling higher amounts of carbon monoxide than with their preferred brands.

"Data from this study were collected in a single exposure to alternative cigarettes in a laboratory environment," Pickworth granted. "The sample size was small, predominantly male and restricted to those over 18 years of age, and included only occasional bidi smokers. These characteristics may have influenced smoking patterns and subjective estimates and may limit the generalizability of the results.

"Nevertheless," he adds, "the results indicate that, contrary to the belief of many consumers, bidi and additive-free cigarettes deliver substantial amounts of nicotine and other toxic components of tobacco smoke."

This research was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

source: http://www.hbns.org/news/bidis12-03-02.cfm
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 19th, 2008, 12:00 am

January 16th, 2006, 7:43 pm #23

for Stephen - keep breathing easier!!
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 18th, 2008, 11:57 pm

July 2nd, 2006, 7:36 pm #24

Note how journalists continue to insist on teaching both children and nicotine addicts that smoking is nothing more than a nasty little habit. One of the surest ways to live a life of perpetual relapse is to treat any true chemical dependency as a habit. Thanks for forwarding the below story Sallie. Still just one rule, no nicotine today, Never Take Another Puff, Dip or Chew! John (Gold x7)

Fewer kick light cigarette habit
BBC News
People who smoke so-called light cigarettes are half as likely to quit than other smokers, research suggests.
A false perception of reduced health risks with low-tar and low-nicotine brands could be a factor, the US authors believe.

A third of those smoking lights said they had chosen this type of cigarette to reduce their health risks.

Yet by doing so they may be increasing their health risks, say the authors in the American Journal of Public Health.

The study of more than 12,000 smokers revealed those who used light cigarettes were about 50% less likely to quit than other cigarette smokers.

Misnomer

Although light cigarettes contain less tar and nicotine, they are still linked to smoking-related diseases such as cancer.

People who smoke light cigarettes are likely to inhale the same amount of hazardous chemicals because they inhale deeper to get enough smoke for a satisfactory nicotine 'hit', according to the National Cancer Institute.

Therefore, they remain at high risk for developing smoking-related cancers and other diseases.

"All cigarettes are deadly"
Amanda Sandford of Action on Smoking and Health
The only way to reduce the health risks is to quit altogether, say health experts.

Most of the light smokers in the study were women.

The University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine team say its findings apply to some 30 million US adult smokers who smoke light cigarettes.

Author Dr Hilary Tindle said: "Even though smokers may hope to reduce their health risks by smoking lights, the results suggest they are doing just the opposite because they are significantly reducing their chances of quitting.

"Moreover, as they get older their chances of quitting become more and more diminished."

She said it was vital smokers were given accurate information on associated health risks.

European law bans misleading descriptions such as "light" and "mild" on all cigarettes sold in the European Union. In the US, however, no such laws exist.

Amanda Sandford, of Action on Smoking and Health, said earlier research in the UK backed the US study's findings.

"It's not surprising that even though logically people know that all smoking is harmful, the power of marketing is such that many people would be conned into thinking the so-called lower tar or light brands are less dangerous. All cigarettes are deadly."

Published: 2006/06/29 23:01:54 GMT

© BBC MMVI
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 18th, 2008, 11:57 pm

July 15th, 2007, 2:53 am #25

Last edited by JoeJFree Gold on March 20th, 2009, 1:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share