Why are there no low tar, high nicotine cigarettes?

[robert_columbia]

Note: nothing in this thread should be interpreted as medical or legal advice, or a representation of facts based on which any person should take an action that could lead to a loss. Smoking’s bad, mmkay, you shouldn’t smoke.

Now, I don’t use the Virginian Weed myself, but I’ve lived long enough in the US to have seen the idea of “light” cigarettes stay a popular phenomenon as the establishment has begun to increasingly rant and rave over how they are not any safer than regular cigs.

It seems that many people have believed that switching to “light” cigarettes was a risk/benefit choice that was similar to choosing to switch to light beer, lowfat milk, or lean beef- e.g. instead of drinking a glass of whole milk at breakfast and a bottle of regular beer with dinner, one would drink a glass of 2% reduced fat milk and a “light” beer. Doing that, one can then get less of a potentially harmful substance (fat or alcohol) without materially changing how much they feel they are consuming.

Now, it seems that we are expected to believe that “light” cigarettes aren’t analogous to lean beef and light beer becuase regardless of the “lightness” of the cig, the tar and nicotine yields vary proportionally, and the amount of “tar” you actually get in a smoking session is not constant with each cigarette, but is dependent on how “hard” you smoke it. Of course, they then say that since low tar cigs are also low nicotine, addicts smoke them proportionally harder. E.g. if Joe smokes a regular cig with smoking intensity X, and then switches to a light cig that measures at half the tar and half the nicotine, he will smoke it with intensity 2X so that he gets the amount of nicotine he’s used to, but then he will also get the amount of tar he used to get because the amounts are proportional.

Why does this have to be? It seems obvious that if the proportionality is why light cigarettes are no longer considered to be any safer, then making a cigarette that had all the nicotine of a regular cig but half the tar would be safer (note: not SAFE, but SAFER than a regular one). While the current “lightening” process seems to reduce tar and nicotine in proportion, surely those tobacco companies could solve something like this with all their millions!

It seems that an obvious solution would be to take a very light cigarette and add craploads of nicotine to it. This should work even if nicotine is taken as a constituent of tar (math left as an excercise to the reader). You would then get a cig that is still fairly low in tar but has the nicotine of an old-time unfiltered Lucky Strike.

I did find the following link

http://tobaccodocuments.org/filters/9991.html

which seems to say that the industry was aware of the possibility that such cigs might be safer but didn’t think the idea is viable.

WHY?

[Alex_Dubinsky]

The same people who yell that light cigarettes aren’t safer also would say that it doesn’t matter how much you smoke, you’re still a smoker, that smoking a cigar once a month will kill you, etc. Of course it matters, you idiots. Look up the word “dosage” in a dictionary. They just want to paint things along their ideological pov.

If you start to smoke cigarettes with less nicotine, maybe there’d be an adjustment period at first but in the end you’re not going to double the number of packs you smoke. I’ll bet that that number will stay constant, as it’s a product of habit more than chemical addiction. You will be tapering down, and a step closer to quitting. Just. like. the. fucking. gum.
Btw, since this might be related to your OP, today it is possible to inhale pure nicotine without any tar. It’s called electric cigarettes. I tried them at a booth at the mall. They had a lot of nicotine. I’ll bet they get their users addicted pretty tight.

[Pray_for_peace]

@robert_andrews

Now, it seems that we are expected to believe that “light” cigarettes aren’t analogous to lean beef and light beer becuase regardless of the “lightness” of the cig, the tar and nicotine yields vary proportionally, and the amount of “tar” you actually get in a smoking session is not constant with each cigarette, but is dependent on how “hard” you smoke it. Of course, they then say that since low tar cigs are also low nicotine, addicts smoke them proportionally harder. E.g. if Joe smokes a regular cig with smoking intensity X, and then switches to a light cig that measures at half the tar and half the nicotine, he will smoke it with intensity 2X so that he gets the amount of nicotine he’s used to, but then he will also get the amount of tar he used to get because the amounts are proportional.

Why does this have to be? It seems obvious that if the proportionality is why light cigarettes are no longer considered to be any safer, then making a cigarette that had all the nicotine of a regular cig but half the tar would be safer (note: not SAFE, but SAFER than a regular one). While the current “lightening” process seems to reduce tar and nicotine in proportion, surely those tobacco companies could solve something like this with all their millions!

I don’t have a cite, but I’m not sure of the validity of your assumption that people who smoke lights will tend to smoke them 2X hard or twice as often.

A lot of people who smoke lights have always smoked lights. So for that demographic it’s not necessarily desirable to have a light cigarette with higher nicotine.

I don’t know how common it is for smokers to switch from regular cigarettes to lights. Most health organizations and anti-smoking advocates take the position that light cigarettes are harmful (because they have other toxic compounds other than the tar), and that smokers should quit smoking rather than switch to lights.

[RandomLetters]

@Alex_Dubinsky

Btw, since this might be related to your OP, today it is possible to inhale pure nicotine without any tar. It’s called electric cigarettes. I tried them at a booth at the mall. They had a lot of nicotine. I’ll bet they get their users addicted pretty tight.

Actually, they make e-cig cartridges in a variety of nicotine levels. They even make cartridges that have no nicotine at all, just the flavoring. Cite.

[Alex_Dubinsky]

@Sidney Evgeni Jordan

Most health organizations and anti-smoking advocates take the position that light cigarettes are harmful (because they have other toxic compounds other than the tar), and that smokers should quit smoking rather than switch to lights.

That’s the way those people are. Don’t switch to lights. Don’t cut down. Don’t reduce all those “other toxic compounds.” Quit or die. They want cigarettes to be as harmful as possible, because it makes them more right.

[Pray_for_peace]

@Alex_Dubinsky

That’s the way those people are. Don’t switch to lights. Don’t cut down. Don’t reduce all those “other toxic compounds.” Quit or die. They want cigarettes to be as harmful as possible, because it makes them more right.

Yeah, I wasn’t taking a side on whether the anti-smokers’ rhetoric about lights is correct or not. I was trying to just point out that I’ve personally never heard of anyone switching from regulars to lights, probably because of the propaganda that you’re talking about. That said, I hope that smokers are able to cut down or, preferably, quit altogether.

SEJ, former smoker (lights only)

[crazyjoe]

I thought light beer was lighter on calories, not lighter in alcohol content?

[gazpacho]

@crazyjoe

I thought light beer was lighter on calories, not lighter in alcohol content?

Light beer tends to be around 4 to 4.2% alcohol as compared to about 5% for most other beer.

Realbeer.com: Carbs In Beer and Beer Alcohol Content

[Alex_Dubinsky]

@crazyjoe

I thought light beer was lighter on calories, not lighter in alcohol content?

I think the term is ambiguous. Some beer is low-alcohol, most beer is low-calorie.

From the afore-linked site, Corona Extra and Corona Light are both 4.5%. Anyway 1% isn’t a huge difference.

[Mister_Rik]

@Sidney Evgeni Jordan

I’ve personally never heard of anyone switching from regulars to lights, probably because of the propaganda that you’re talking about.

I switched from Camel Filters (Camel’s “full strength” filtered variety) to Camel Ultra Lights*, and I don’t smoke any more of the UL’s than I did the Filters**. I switched for a purely practical reason: I was the lead singer in a band back in 2003-04, and I tended to smoke much more than normal when I was out on a gig (cigs between songs, several cigs while on breaks between sets, etc.) Pretty soon, my voice was shot from all those cigs. I switched to ultra lights, and the “problem” went away.

• Interestingly, the Ultra Lights taste stronger to me than the Lights.

** My main tobacco product is actually chewing tobacco, but chewing is obviously extremely impractical when you’re singing on stage

[Duckster]

Many smokers choose “low-tar,” “mild,” or “light” cigarettes because they think that light cigarettes may be less harmful to their health than “regular” or “full-flavor” cigarettes. After all, the smoke from light cigarettes feels smoother and lighter on the throat and chest - so lights must be healthier than regulars, right? Wrong. **The truth is that light cigarettes do not reduce the health risks of smoking. The only way to reduce your risk, and the risk to others around you, is to stop smoking completely.

– snip –

**
[ul]
[li]The Federal Government’s National Cancer Institute (NCI) recently concluded that light cigarettes provide no benefit to smokers’ health.*[/li][li]According to the NCI report, people who switch to light cigarettes from regular cigarettes are likely to inhale the same amount of hazardous chemicals, and they remain at high risk for developing smoking-related cancers and other diseases.[/li][li]There is also no evidence that switching to light or ultra-light cigarettes actually helps smokers quit.[/li][/ul]

101 Alternatives for Smoking

[Alex_Dubinsky]

See, right there. There’s the lie. “The only way to reduce your risk is to stop smoking completely.” There’s an obvious, well-document correlation between cigarette consumption and cancer risk, among other risk factors.

And you know what, I tracked down that stupid NCI report. And I read it. And do you know what it said on page 81? Here, read it yourself.

Table 4-1 shows the studies that have examined lung cancer risks with
low-yield products. While a few studies have not found a relationship, and
several of the relationships identified were not statistically significant, the
clear impression from these studies taken as a whole is that there is a lower
risk of lung cancer among populations of smokers who use lower yield
products.

Of course the report goes on to argue reasons why things are not as they seem, but kudos to it for having the balls (unlike most other sources) to acknowledge what the “clear impression” happens to be.
Btw, for the record, I’m not a smoker.

[An_Arky]

@Alex_Dubinsky

I think the term is ambiguous. Some beer is low-alcohol, most beer is low-calorie.

From the afore-linked site, Corona Extra and Corona Light are both 4.5%. Anyway 1% isn’t a huge difference.

Adding 1% to 4.5% is a 22%+ increase in the alcohol content.

[Nametag]

Adding nicotine to tobacco would be considered “adulteration,” and is illegal. When tobacco companies investigated the possibility of raising the amount of nicotine in cigarette tobacco by other means (breeding, blending, whatever it was), they were castigated by guardians of public health for trying to make cigarettes more addictive. Well, yeah, they probably were.

But in 1972 the editors of Consumer Reports published The Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs; in their chapter on nicotine, they pointed out a number of ways to reduce death from cigarette smoking, given that there’s a baseline level of addiction. The program included the future invention of nicotine inhalers, nicotine chewing gum, and switching to pipes, cigars, or chewing tobacco. But at the top of the list was developing a short cigarette with high nicotine content, for the same reason as in the OP.

[ZomZom]

There are now electronic cigarettes that have no tar and you can put whatever strength nicotine into the atomizer that you like.

[Calluses]

I’ve been wondering the opposite — cigarettes with LESS nicotine. Someone I work with has started using these filters: www.nicout.com and I’ve been wondering whether or not they’re really doing what they say they’re doing, and more important, is this a good thing? They’re supposed to filter out most of the tar and nicotine.

Just find the concept interesting, that’s all.