Amazing when Congress and smoking meets captalism and chemicals

yum.

why people with healthy lungs want to smoke is beyond me. I got asthma so I get all reduced lung function of a smoker with none of the "cool".

Cigarettes aren't "designed" to be addictive, it's an inherent property of the stuff they are made with.

Designing to be addictive is putting cocaine (and later caffiene) in soft drinks...

I don't have references for this... but I understand that Europe (or at least the UK) already had "purity laws" for cigarettes (similar to the German beer laws)... but most Euro cigs are made with inferior tobacco. Back when I smoked, my preference were Dunhills... which were made under the "purity laws" but with Virginia tobacco.

You couldn't really immediately taste the difference, but smoke a pack of them then pick up a pack of Malboros (made from the same type of tobacco) and the smell and taste of the added chemicals were evident on the first puff. Consequently, I've always felt that US cigs were less "healthy" than European cigs... even if I had no real documentation to prove it.

I don't particuarly like the Government forcing an industry to build a different product, but I would support full ingrediant dislcosure laws so that the consumer can make an informed decision.

What I find ironic is that some of the most active anti-smokers are also actively supportive of MJ legalization...

Bill

From: http://www.news.com.au/national/cigarettes-may-contain-pigs-blood/story-e6frfkvr-1225847653290

CIGARETTES may contain traces of pigs' blood, an Australian academic says with a warning that religious groups could find its undisclosed presence "very offensive". University of Sydney Professor in Public Health Simon Chapman points to recent Dutch research which identified 185 different industrial uses of a pig - including the use of its haemoglobin in cigarette filters. Prof Chapman said the research offered an insight into the otherwise secretive world of cigarette manufacture, and it was likely to raise concerns for devout Muslims and Jews. Religious texts at the core of both of these faiths specifically ban the consumption of pork. "I think that there would be some particularly devout groups who would find the idea that there were pig products in cigarettes to be very offensive," Prof Chapman said today. "The Jewish community certainly takes these matters extremely seriously and the Islamic community certainly do as well, as would many vegetarians. Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar. Related Coverage'High fire risk' cigarettes banned NEWS.com.au, 18 Mar 2010 Illegal tobacco costing $600m a year NEWS.com.au, 5 Feb 2010 More shock and gore on ciggies Daily Telegraph, 3 Jan 2010 Switch to lights goes up in smoke The Australian, 3 Nov 2009 Smoking costs $31b - report Perth Now, 21 Oct 2009End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar. "It just puts into hard relief the problem that the tobacco industry is not required to declare the ingredients of cigarettes ... they say 'that's our business' and a trade secret." The Dutch research found pig haemoglobin - a blood protein - was being used to make cigarette filters more effective at trapping harmful chemicals before they could enter a smoker's lungs. Prof Chapman said while tobacco companies had moved voluntarily list the contents of their products on their websites, they also noted undisclosed "processing aids ... that are not significantly present in, and do not functionally affect, the finished product". This catch-all term hid from public view an array of chemicals and other substances used in the making of tobacco products, he said. At least one cigarette brand sold in Greece was confirmed as using pig haemoglobin in its processes, Prof Chapman said, and the status of smokes sold was unknown. "If you're a smoker and you're of Islamic or Jewish faith then you'd probably would want to know and there is no way of finding out," Prof Chapman said. The Sydney office of British American Tobacco Australia was contacted by AAP. A spokeswoman said a comment would be provided although it was not immediately available.

ZOMG, BOTH of those smoking vegetarians are gonna freak!!

I now reflect on all the smokes we gave Moslems insisting on bribes to get us through customs. Puff away, doodes. Oink oink.

mtn wrote:

foxtrapper wrote: Ya know, I don't follow that. Extracting things from a tobacco plant has nothing to do with prohibiting the addition of extra chemicals to a cigarette. What are you trying to put together?

The point is that since they might not be able to put things into it *other than what they can extract from the tobacco plant* they are finding things that they can extract from the plant anyways. I think.

Correct.

The flavors (including menthol) will still be there, it's just that the source of those flavors will not be a non-tobacco additive. It will come from the tobacco plant. Gonna be hard to legislate against it.

ignorant wrote: They did what they were supposed to do. Compete or die. It is good stuff and I congratulate them for not sitting down and complaining about government rulings, getting on with things and finding something even more useful. Sometimes ya gotta stop complaining and just get on with it.

Spoken like a TRUE capitalist.

I am proud of you. Confused, but proud of you.

Bill, I guess they just add nicotine to cigarettes for fun, it doesnt have anything to do with making them more addictive. I looked online and wasnt immediately able to find any hard numbers, but I know that most major brands list nearly 10g of nicotine in their packs, which is listed along with other "ingredients" in their cigarettes. American Spirit is a brand that has no ingredients, as there are no ADDITIVES...so they dont have to report Nicotine levels, since theres none added. Most major cigarette brands add it, and its for the sole purpose of hooking you hard and fast.

Im with ECM, i are glad to has be a kwittar...over 1 year cold turkey without a single "cheat", and going strong!

SVreX wrote:

ignorant wrote: They did what they were supposed to do. Compete or die. It is good stuff and I congratulate them for not sitting down and complaining about government rulings, getting on with things and finding something even more useful. Sometimes ya gotta stop complaining and just get on with it.

Spoken like a TRUE capitalist. I am proud of you. Confused, but proud of you.

but you could say its a truly capitalist response to a manipulated "free market"

It's not that I mind people smoking, it's just that it's a really stinky way of committing suicide.

4banger:

Congrats on quitting! I'm off 23 years now (used to be a 5-pack-a-dayer). Keep up the good work.

Nicotine comes from tobacco. It constitutes 1-3% of the plant. Therefore, anything that has tobacco in it has nicotine, unless it was specifically removed.

Of course, that would not prevent a company from INCREASING the percentage in the product on the shelves. That would count as an INGREDIENT, but not an ADDITIVE.

American Spirit certainly does have ingredients. Tobacco and paper come to mind.

4cylndrfury wrote: Bill, I guess they just add nicotine to cigarettes for fun, it doesnt have anything to do with making them more addictive. I looked online and wasnt immediately able to find any hard numbers, but I know that most major brands list nearly 10g of nicotine in their packs, which is listed along with other "ingredients" in their cigarettes. American Spirit is a brand that has no ingredients, as there are no ADDITIVES...so they dont have to report Nicotine levels, since theres none added. Most major cigarette brands add it, and its for the sole purpose of hooking you hard and fast.

I think you badly misunderstand what that lableing is showing you (or possibly I do).

Nicotine normally makes up about 5 percent of a tobacco plant, by weight. Cigarettes contain 8 to 20 milligrams (mg) of nicotine (depending on the brand).

Laws in the 1990's forced companies to test and disclosure the amount of nicotine in their cigarettes, so that's hwere the labeling comes in.

Now the "charge" is that tobacco companies manipulate the % of nicotine by using different tobaccos and/or processing techniques (using as "proof" that nicotine levels have been steadily rising since disclosures began), but nowhere have I heard the charge that companies are artifically adding additional nicotine to their products.

Kudos for you guys who have quit. I quit over a decade ago... cold turkey is the only way... and while I still occaisionally get an urge, the few times I've succumbed (usually with large amounts of alcohol clouding my judgement) I've never made it past a single puff... it just tastes awful to me now.

Bill

ref article: http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/other/articles/2006/08/30/cigarettes_pack_more_nicotine/

SVreX wrote: 4banger: Congrats on quitting! I'm off 23 years now (used to be a 5-pack-a-dayer). Keep up the good work. Nicotine comes from tobacco. It constitutes 1-3% of the plant. Therefore, anything that has tobacco in it has nicotine, unless it was specifically removed. Of course, that would not prevent a company from INCREASING the percentage in the product on the shelves. That would count as an INGREDIENT, but not an ADDITIVE. American Spirit certainly does have ingredients. Tobacco and paper come to mind.

Fair enough, I should watch my terminology.

Yes tobacco does certainly contain a small percentage of naturally occurring nicotine. My point was to contradict Bills statement: most major brands add nicotine in order to hook you and keep you smoking.

Do the math... the amount of nicotine you think they are adding coincides with the percentages naturally occuring.

Again, I've not seen any charge anywhere that nicotine is being actually added... just that the percentage is being maniuplated.... a very different thing.

Correction... after some research I did find your charge here: http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.791/healthissue_detail.asp

I'm still skeptical of the validity of the charge, but did want to correct my position that I didn't think such charges were being made.

Bill

In testimony to Congress following the charges in the article I posted above, all of the major manufacturers stated that they did not artically add nicotine to their products, but sidestepped the primary chare of whether they manipulated nicotine levels. That was always the primary charge... see this period NYT editorial on the subject.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/03/opinion/philip-morris-lashes-back.html?pagewanted=1

Im sure the companies are doing what they can to hide the reporting. my guess is through report manipulation, they denied allegations of adding nicotine by virtue of plausible deniability. THis is all unfounded as I hav eno proof, so perhaps I have my foil hat on. But, I think given the lengths that tobacco co's have gone to to hide or downplay their actions in the past in regards to gaining and keeping "customers", its safe to assume that theres at least reason to look closer when the amount of nicotine starts to raise over time.

To the charge of manipulation: yes, absolutely.

To the charge of artically adding nicotine: not as long as the resulting product remains within the natural range of nicotine in tobacco. (and as long as it does, why would they bother to artifically add it).

You get the majority of your point using the (virtually proven) charge of manipulation. Cigs are not artically designed to be addicitve... that's inherent in the product... but as long as companies have the ability to manipulate levels up or down, you can fairly charge that they are doing that in order for the product to be more addictive.

Oh, the levels of THC in MJ have gone up much more dramatically than nicotine... think the manufacturers are articfically adding it there? ;-)

Nothing I say should in any way be interpreted to be defending the tobacco industry. I think they are horrible.

However, increasing the percentage of nicotine and adding it are not necessarily the same thing.

Let's say I start with a bucket full of ingredients. Tobacco is not on the periodic table, so it is not an element unto itself. It is made up of a lot of stuff.

3% of those ingredients is nicotine.

If I REMOVE 10% of the OTHER ingredients in the bucket, I will have decreased the total volume, making the percentage of nicotine INCREASE by 10% (actually, its 10.74%, but...)

That's not adding anything. I'm just saying...

OK, you could remove 10% of the naturally growing tobacco makup that isn't nicotine, add 10% pig blood and be even on the nicotine, right?

Anyway, I recall reading somewhere a few years ago that the nicotine was actually removed from the tobacco and then added back in again later in the process to standardize the level.

Oh, and American cigarettes are the most highly sought after all over the world. Local stuff or even American brands but for foreign markets is always looked down on in comparison.

Oh, and American cigarettes are the most highly sought after all over the world. Local stuff or even American brands but for foreign markets is always looked down on in comparison.

That's mainly due to the quality of the tobacco, not the cigs themselves. I understand that my example (Dunhills), made with VA tobacco, is considered to be a better product than the US cigs, even in the UK. But that's one of the few exceptions to your rule that I can think of...

Back when I was a smoker I also preferred a chemical laden US cig over a Euro cig made with inferior tobacco...

wcelliot wrote: Kudos for you guys who have quit. I quit over a decade ago... cold turkey is the only way... and while I still occaisionally get an urge, the few times I've succumbed (usually with large amounts of alcohol clouding my judgement) I've never made it past a single puff... it just tastes awful to me now. Bill

unfortunately, I get the urge every day...every effing damn day. Everytime I get in the car, after every meal, after every...you know, everytime I have some coffee, everytime it gets stressfull at work, evertime I go to the bar...I want one. I look at my 1 year mark as a big accomplishment. My will power is not usually this strong. I guess I kind of brainwashed myself...or just became more acutely aware of how it smelled and how it made me smell. Now, when I smell other coworkers fresh off a smoke break or get into a smokers car, I nearly hurl...thats a powerful dterent

4cyl:

My experience was similar to yours. I wasn't a happy feller.

I've been off for 23 years. Still want 'em every once in a while.

However, I DO want you to know that 1 year was a really big milestone. When I quit, I used to get POed a lot. Why the heck should I quit, when I don't get any of the benefits (like no more cravings, ability to run up stairs, etc.).

But shortly after a year, one day I realized the cravings just weren't there anymore. Yes, I occasionally still get them, but overall, it got a LOT easier after a year.

So, hang in there, dude! It's a happy moment when one day (which should be pretty soon for you) you realize that it doesn't have you in a headlock anymore.

4cylndrfury wrote: unfortunately, I get the urge every day...every effing damn day. Everytime I get in the car, after every meal, after every...you know, everytime I have some coffee, everytime it gets stressfull at work, evertime I go to the bar...I want one. I look at my 1 year mark as a big accomplishment. My will power is not usually this strong. I guess I kind of brainwashed myself...or just became more acutely aware of how it smelled and how it made me smell. Now, when I smell other coworkers fresh off a smoke break or get into a smokers car, I nearly hurl...thats a powerful dterent

It does get easier and the urges do eventually go away. My biggest issue was that I really berkeleying enjoyed smoking, the flavor, the accessories, all of it. Giving up the part that I enjoyed was the hardest, the addiction became secondary. I will still wake up from dreams feeling incredibly guilty for buying a pack of smokes, only to realize it was a dream. I'm so bad in my dreams. Hang in there, it gets easier!

EastCoastMojo wrote: I'm so bad in my dreams. Hang in there, it gets easier!

youre naughty

thanks for the support everyone, and to be clear, I have no intention on breaking my streak now.

An added side benefit of not smoking is no longer having to creep around in the shadows hiding it from my wife...I can finally behave like a big boy now