Cancer free cigarettes?

I heard that one of the reasons everyone is p.o.'d at the tobacco companies is because they had the chance to make “cancer free” cigarettes, but didn’t because to do so would be admitting that their original product was harmful.
When was this, and most important, what is a cancer free cig? One that isn’t lit is all I can think of. What kind of ingredients would it have? Would in contain Nick? Does this actually exist? Or is this just bullshit to make the tobacco giants look worse than they already do?


Shouldn’t it be “p.'d o.”?

Just asking.

It’s just bullshit. If you inhale the smoke from any burning substance, you are getting tar, carbon monoxide and several hundred other toxins created during incomplete combustion (that’s why you can see the smoke).

If you want something really healthy, try smoking crack or meth. That way you won’t live long enough to suffer from the effects of smoking tobacco, tea leaves, marijuana, fish scales or whatever.

“You mean we’re smoking DOGSHIT, Man?” - Cheech Marin - Up in Smoke.

I have a crackpot theory about the source of carcinogens in cigarettes:

  1. Its in the matches. Phosphorous in the matches and butane from ligters gives you cancer.

  2. Its from the chemical fertilizers. Chemical fertilizer contains phosporous which tends to have unusually high amounts of radioactive isotopes, along with other odd radioactive trace elements like Polonium that are radioactive. This gets integrated into the plant fibers, and you end up smoking it.

My crackpot theory proposes that if you grew organic tobacco with only natural fertilizers (i.e. fish fertilizer), and lit it without a match or lighter (i.e. a red hot wire) then you would not get so many carcinogens.

But hey, at least I admit its a crackpot theory.

That’s pretty damn crackpot, Chas. I leave the proof as an exercise for the reader.

BTW, I wasn’t aware that any cigarettes had cancer…

My work here is done.

I vaugely recall that the cigarette companies experimented with an artificial cigarette that was basicly a way to deliver hot nicotine vapor to the smoker. But they dropped the idea because it would be too much like admitting that tobacco did cause cancer.

Which raises another question: If cigarette smoke causes cancer, maybe we should just admit that we like being addicted to nicotine and start buying the pure stuff? No one bothers chewing coca leaves or drinking poppy juice anymore.

“IF”?!?!?!?! Yes, smokers would be a lot better off just using nicotine patches. And what do you mean? I make tea out of poppy juice and coca leaf whenever I can find the ingredients.

IIRC, one of the tobacco giants actually funded a study to try and prove this, once upon a time…

The problem with doing pure nicotine, is that it’s extremely diluted in most of its usual means of delivery (cigs, chew, patches, etc.). Concentrated, it’s a pretty nasty poison-- Favored by assassins, I understand, because if your victim is a smoker, the nicotine traces in the blood won’t look so suspicious.

Anyone have any data on the LD-50 for nicotine in humans?

IIRC, it’s only a couple of grams. Sorry, no cites, but I think I recall being told in a science class that one drop would do it.

this may be an UL, but i have read the following easy recipe to kill- soak one cigarette in water overnight. remove cigarette and allow water to evaporate. leftover matewrial is a deadly poison.

if you do kill anybody though, remember- you didn’t hear this from me

In the book “Hit Man” by Rex Ferrel, using pure nick to kill someone is discussed. It takes about 40mg of nicotine to kill a person, more for some, less for others. Even the strongest cigarette only has about 15mg, and thats the whole cig, not all at once. So 40mg is more than a drop. the problem is getting pure nicotine in the first place, and a delivery system to the target.

It’s easier to shoot the victim, as she shows in great detail. (Rex Ferrel is actually a woman).

Chas, that theory isn’t crackpot. It’s just wrong. Really. There there. The problem isn’t phosphorous or butane (both relatively harmless in comparison with the real killers). No the problem is with the burning. You’re slowly burning things and inhaling the smoke, in the process you’re getting a whole lot of nasties having nothing to do with how the cigs are made or grown, but having a whole lot to do with the fact that you’re inhaling smoke.

for the same effect, dry up a whole lot of grass (from the lawn, not pot), put it in a pipe, and smoke it. Same carcinogens, but no high.

If a whole cigarette won’t kill a person, why would part of it kill? Although I suppose if you mixed the residue in club soda, and then injected it into someone’s vein, that just might kill them. Or if you coated a bullet with it…

Actually, it’s dirt easy to get pure nicotine. Just steep cigarette butts in water, use cheesecloth or something like it to strain the butts out after a while, then boil the water away. I read this in Deadly Doses : A Writer’s Guide to Poisons, an excellent reference book for this sort of thing.

True. I’ll bet that it’s easier to trace a gun than some nicotine, though.

Lumpy - there’s more to smoking cigs than getting the nicotine. I quit March 31 but I’m still using the nicotine gum, and believe me, I still get cravings for a real smoke.
As any smoker (or ex-smoker) will tell you, getting nicotine via patch or gum is just not the same as getting it from the cig. Chewing gum does not give me that wonderful feeling of drawing that carcinogen-laden smoke into my lungs and then blowing it out. The nic AND the process relaxes you, plus it’s something to do with your hands. It’s a physical and a psychological addiction. Don’t get the same amount of nic from the gum either. Even though I used the gum when I quit, I still two bad days of depression and in general feeling like hell. Now I just have to wean myself off the gum.

One school of thought is because the Tobacco companies added chemicals and flavorings to the cigarettes to make them easier to smoke. Original cigarettes used to go out like cigars. Salt peter was added for smoother burning. Then various increased strengths of tobacco were developed and more chemicals added for better flavor. I have read here and elsewhere that one of the problems was, during WW2, the companies switched from rice paper to American pulp paper. Many older smokers stated that the cigarettes became harsher then.

In a tobacco store, one can buy cigarettes with not additives and they will go out and they do not taste as smooth as the regular variety. Most are even thinner than the regular ones.

The tobacco companies did start to produce a smokeless cigarette but antismokers, a rabid, fanatical breed, petitioned the food and drug administration to stop it. (Since they could no longer smoke, no one else should be allowed to either.) The food and drug administration found that the smokeless cigarette used a capsule of nicotine, which, when heated, gave off the drug smokers crave. No foul smoke, no additives. Much safer.

They banned it because he tobacco companies would be distributing a controlled substance. (The nicotine capsule.) That is illegal. (Like, they aren’t distributing it in cigarettes?)

They are currently working on a newer version.

A side note here: All over the TV and Radio, one gets to listen to commercials and spots ranting about smoking. People call in to gripe at people who mention smoking. People in the street scowl at and make comments to smokers.

Yet, pot, a smoked weed, is still actually accepted, though illegal. Very much illegal, but TV and radio personalities joke about using it, sales are still high, the stuff is stronger than in the 70s, and they make jokes about it in movies, comedy skits and books.

Post is more accepted than cigarettes.

Surgoshan wrote:

Speak for your own lawn, buster.
tracer, puffin’ on some crabgrass.

Quoth pkbites:

How do you figure? Assuming that nicotine has approximately the same density as water, one gram would be a cubic centimeter. We’re talking about 4% of that, or a sphere of radius 2 mm. That sounds like a small enough amount to be called a “drop”, to me.