Okie, i have a question about cigarettes. Are light and ultra light cigarettes really any better for you than regular smokes (and yes, i know NO kind of cig is GOOD for you… just heading you wise-asses off at the pass )? And a better question still is, are the regular ones (ie. marlboro reds) more likely to give you cancer/emphysema (sp?) than say, a marlboro ultra light?
Also, a lot of time in magazine it adds it says “x ammount of nicotine, x ammount of tar by FTC method”, but they never list the actual rating on the packs themselves. Where could i find a list of various cigarettes and thier ratings. Also, what the hell IS the FTC method? Thanks!
“…the dark side of the mirror always threw our malice back…”
I read some articles sometime back that said the FTC tar and nicotine ratings may be misleading. The test is done with a machine, a robot smoker. IIRC the article said that real smokers compensate when sucking on light cancer sticks by pulling harder and covering the small vent holes in the on filters with their lips. This causes the tobacco to burn hotter and release more nasty stuff into the smoke rather than leaving it in the ash.
Yeah, i seem to remember something along those lines before too. But what does it do to the likelyhood of cancer? Curious about this i guess because i smoke.
“It’s the cigarette that smokes, the smoker just SUCKS” Tee hee.
“…the dark side of the mirror always threw our malice back…”
Low tar cigarettes could in fact be worse for you than regular medium tar brands. If you’re already used to medium tar, switching to low will generally lead to you smoking more cigarettes overall, taking more hits on each cigarette and inhaling more deeply and for longer: the same reasons, apart from the first one, why three cannabis joints a day is as bad for you as a pack of 20 cigarettes.
The European Union requires manufacturers to print the tar and nicotine content of the cigarettes on the side of the pack, so if you can find a European website selling cigarettes, or even pictures of European cigarette packets on-line, you might be able to get some info.
Heavily filtered cigarettes deliver more carbon monoxide than unfiltered smokes. That doesn’t necessarily mean you should switch to Lucky Strikes.
[rant]And I swear, if one more guy comes up to me at a party and tells me that breathing second hand smoke is more deadly than smoking, I’m going to prove that person right by killing him. I think I suffer fools rather well, but that particular bit of nonsense is like saying overeaters with tapeworms are healthier than obese overeaters because they have fewer heart attacks. Wake the hell up![/rant]
You should point out to him that there is no way for the smoker to smoke without also breating the residual/second hand smoke produced by the cigarette and that any smoke inhaled by the smoker through the cigarette is additional to the smoke that non-smokers in the vicinity are also inhaling.
You should proceed to make wide-ranging inferences about his character and intellect based on his inability to grasp this simple, intuitively self-evident fact.
)? And a better question still is, are the regular ones (ie. marlboro reds) more likely to give you cancer/emphysema (sp?) than say, a marlboro ultra light?
