View Full Version : More Nicotine in Cigarettes
30th August 2006, 01:53 PM
No, that's not a request, it's a report (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/30/AR2006083001418.html).
Massachusetts, which requires tobacco companies to release information on nicotine content, wrote a report stating that nicotine has risen 10% in cigarettes over the past six years, with some popular brands going as high as 20%.
I do wish Shanek was here (old timers will remember the cigarette wars).
30th August 2006, 02:15 PM
Well that's just peachy. But I gotta say, I'm not surprised, and it makes total sense. Faced with a potentially shrinking market (not sure if this is really the case) for an addictive product, just increase the addictivity (is that a word?). Question for you: is this unethical? I'm ambivalent about it. On one hand, I don't think it really is. Though it does increase the weirdness about how tobacco is legal and other addictive substances aren't (I've talked about this alot in other threads).
I wonder what the press will do with this (and is it the same in the UK?).
And will I get an award (for overuse of parenthesis)?
30th August 2006, 02:16 PM
As much as I'm aware of how much legislature is state-level rather than federal in the US, I'm surprised this isn't countrywide in the US. Every fag packet you buy in this country (and, as far as I'm aware, in the EU) has the nicotine, tar, and carbon monoxide ratings for that brand on the side of the packet.
30th August 2006, 02:20 PM
Marlboro Lights (or Marlboro gold, as we have to call them since the EU decided 'Lights' was misleading (to idiots)) contain 6mg of tar, 0.5mg of nicotine, and 7mg of CO, by the way.
30th August 2006, 02:23 PM
Memories, what memories... (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=43481)
Oh, yeah... (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=23242)
30th August 2006, 02:23 PM
Rat, how are those numbers calculated. There's quite a contravery about how the companies self report the numbers, as many claim it does not realistically reflect how a cigarette is smoked. For example, a thick filter makes it harder for the smoke to get through, and the company reports lower numbers. But the reality is that the smoker sucks on the dang thing for all their worth to get their hit, and and up with a higher nicotine hit than the original cigarette, not less.
30th August 2006, 03:48 PM
As far as I'm aware (I've never looked too hard into it), a machine just sucks on it till it's done, and the values given are the total collected. Obviously, this is not how a smoker smokes, but the figures are intended (I assume) to be relative, not absolute. It allows one to compare between brands.
This comes back to why I said the ban on 'Lights' designation was to protect idiots. Everyone knows that if you have a cigarette with lower tar, longer filter, or holes in the paper round the filter, then you will smoke that fag harder. Nobody sensible believes that lower tar fags are 'healthy'. I've only ever seen them as a stepping stone to giving up, and even then it's debatable.
I also assume that the suction applied to a given fag (yes, yes, ho ho) is uniform across each test, and so longer filters, etc, will reflect on the result.
30th August 2006, 07:53 PM
A couple years ago, after there was a boom in chewing tobacco, I noticed two kinds of tobacco plants growing roadside. And wondered why. Seems one is 'Tree Tobacco", the other the conventional bush. The tree has no nicotine, but does have flavor. The leafy kind has the nicotine. So, "blending for flavor" as the producers admit doing, is also blending for nicotine content. But if they get caught blending for nicotine content intentionally, they are then be selling a drug, and come under FDA jurisdiction. They would need to prove benefit and harmlessness. So, maybe the are not using the tree tobacco anymore, hence the increase in nicotine content?
Anyhow, if I were a smoker, I'd make my own. The recipe starts with about 10% glycerine to keep them burning, and 15% maple syrup for flavor. Try a mix of about 50% each tobacco to start, I think pure leaf tobacco would melt the top of your cranium. I would take the time out from homebrewing beer to try a recipe, but none of the smokers I know seemed interested.
Vermont maple syrup goes on pancakes. Pennsylvania makes lots more, but you never see it- it all goes up in smoke.
© 2001-2009, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
vBulletin® v3.7.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.