11
   

Is it time for Cig Smokers to Move to Black Market Product

 
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Nov, 2011 10:13 pm
@hawkeye10,
But the tobacco companies did misrepresent their product for many years. A new company would not have that legal burden. By calling their product coffin nails it would be hard to say they are misrepresenting the danger.
Robert Gentel
 
  4  
Reply Fri 18 Nov, 2011 10:23 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
If you want to smoke, fine, don't do it near anybody else.


I'm all for you not wanting to smell smoke if that suits your fancy, I don't agree with the obnoxious desire to prevent smokers from having any place to smoke though.

Each bar and restaurant should be able to choose what clientele they serve, I desire to avoid self-righteous non-smokers just as much as they desire to avoid smokers.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Nov, 2011 10:27 pm
As far as I can tell from a quick search, engineer, I think you're wrong. The existant companies have been subject to certain penalties for past actions, but any tobacco company, old or newly formed, is subject to the same pachage warnings. Which are, incidentally, quite a bit LESS than those in a number of the more developed countries, where warnings, including graphic warnings often cover 30% of the front of cig packages and 90%, that's not a typo, 90% of the back with graphics and type that cannot by law blend in with the tobacco company graphics or logoing, which is possible in the States. I think those other countries have it about right.
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Nov, 2011 10:28 pm
Doesn't work that way, Robert. They're places of public accomodation.

And after decades of being subjected to smokers' obnoxious, self-righteous behavior of smoking anywhere they wanted, I have absolutely no compunction with, in your terms, "self-righteous, obnoxious" demands that they don't.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 Nov, 2011 10:32 pm
@MontereyJack,
You're correct about packaging, but tobacco companies have other limitations due to a settlement with the states for past misrepresentations about the risks of smoking. They have to pay large amounts of money into a fund and they have severe limitations on advertising. A new company could challenge these rules. I'm not a smoker and don't care for cigarette smoke, but if those who want to smoke can do so without bothering me, then it is completely legal so why not?
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Nov, 2011 10:37 pm
Fine, engineer. I don't consider smokers forming a gantlet outside the doors of restaurants or office buildings that you have to pass through to get inside as "smoking where it doesn't bother anyone else". Away from anyone else means away from anyone else.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Nov, 2011 10:41 pm
And I also don't think you're right about new companies' potential lack of restriction. they'd be pushing the same product, with the same deleterious effects, and I think the several laws Congress has passed would have the same effect on them as on established companies, though they probably wouldn't be subject to any fines for past acts, at least as long as they don't try the same old claims. I may be wrong, do we have any cigarette lawyers in the house?
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Nov, 2011 11:24 pm
@engineer,
Quote:
but if those who want to smoke can do so without bothering me, then it is completely legal so why not?
Dont you need to add an "in theory" disclaimer? We are working towards the claim that smoking is legal so long as the smoke from smoking does not end up in earth's atmosphere...in other words it is NOT legal.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Nov, 2011 11:29 pm
@engineer,
engineer wrote:

But the tobacco companies did misrepresent their product for many years. A new company would not have that legal burden. By calling their product coffin nails it would be hard to say they are misrepresenting the danger.
Isn't there a statue a limitations on that, especially since it was government and not the companies who had the duty to protect the health of the citizens from undue hazards and yet four decades later they still don't see fit to say that tobacco is so hazardous that it should not be sold? I say **** it, at this point every single person who was responsible for the misrepresentation of the hazards of smoking is dead...turn the page already.
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Nov, 2011 11:45 pm
Quote:
Isn't there a statue a limitations on that, especially since it was government and not the companies who had the duty to protect the health of the citizens from undue hazards and yet four decades later they still don't see fit to say that tobacco is so hazardous that it should not be sold


bollocks. If you sell a hazardous product, you're liable for what happens. it's the companies that had the duty and refused it and obscured it. Companies are legally fictive persons and are potentially eternal, and they're ultimately responsible, whether the people who made those decisions on the company's behalf are alive (which some still are) or dead. I'm not sure a statute of limitations can expire when you're still making and selling the same product which still has the same toxic and potentially fatal result. You probably can't get them for "More doctors recommend Chesterfields than any other brand" anymore, granted, but the same problems with the product remain in effect.
0 Replies
 
wayne
 
  2  
Reply Sat 19 Nov, 2011 07:41 am
@MontereyJack,
Yet you apparently believe it's your right to inflict the exhaust fumes from your automobile upon the rest of the world. Out of sight out of mind, odorless gases don't count, right?
How small-minded of you, to cast judgement as if you are so perfect, get real Jack.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Nov, 2011 08:12 am
Not saying I'm perfect at all. I suffered smoker's **** for years, and payback's a bitch, isn't it?
engineer
 
  3  
Reply Sat 19 Nov, 2011 08:13 am
@hawkeye10,
I think anyone who smoked during the 70's knew that cigarettes were hazardous. I was taught that in elementary school. To claim you were deceived by the tobacco companies is pretty bogus to me.
shewolfnm
 
  2  
Reply Sat 19 Nov, 2011 08:21 am
what gets me about this 'making cis illegal ' junk is that they want to cite SAFETY as the number one issue.

Ok. I agree ten million percent there. Cigs are extremely dangerous and the act of smoking commercial cigs for long periods of time has been PROVEN to be one of the major causes of different cancers.

yup. thats true.


But, why are they holding the buyer responsible for what the MANUFACTURER puts in them? Seriously?
Im supposed to be able to purchase and enjoy smokes freely.. but since I am the little guy I have to now carry the financial punishment for something I have no control over?

Why are they not getting down on the cig makers to STOP putting UNNECESSARY chemicals in those damn things to begin with? its those unnecessary things that are CAUSING the cancers to begin with.

it is NOT the actual, natural leaf that causes it
it is NOT the natural chemical nicotine..

its the 500+ FDA APPROVED chemicals that are added that are contributing to the cancer.

FDA APPROVED.....really.

They know the side effects. They allow them to happen. They even conduct the TESTS that show it is wrong. They fuel the anti smoking campaign........ yet they boost their profits by passing the financial punishment on to the buyer.

and people just stand back and take it. Amazing huh.
shewolfnm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Nov, 2011 08:24 am
Not to mention, the number one issue that the anti smoking rally uses to try to piss others off and get them motivated to agree with their judgmental thought is that second hand smoking is apparently dangerous enough to cause lung cancer too.. and even some say that 2nd hand is as dangerous as smoking the cig itself.



Sorry.
Thats not true.
but if that were made public then the anti smoking rally would not have a LEG to stand on, and then people would HAVE to turn and look at the manufacturer who put all that other stuff in there to GET you so addicted you cant stop so they can make money off of you until you die.

But, heaven forbid THEY be responsible. Its easier to alienate, hate and blame the smoker.. It gives people a feeling of being better than someone else. That seems to be an action that is just as addictive as smoking itself
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Nov, 2011 08:26 am
@shewolfnm,
cyclic aromatic compounds are the killers. All of them are injected or added in some other way.
Even cigars have several odor and taste additives that stir up the taste buds. The other crap that kills ya just is an additive for taking up these flavor enhancers
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Reply Sat 19 Nov, 2011 08:46 am
Not quite that simple. I found a list of some 60 things present in tobacco products that are known carcinogens, and while I can't identify a lot of them offhand, a couple at least come from the tobacco itself (one compound whose name ends -nicotine, and a couple in varying amounts that come from the soil in which its grown which are I presume taken up by the plant as it grow).
Additives also are there for many more reasons than just flavor enhancement, some for example to make the nicotine hit harder. Here's a pretty good aricle about some of the way they zap you.

Quote:
Lowell Kleinman, M.D., and Deborah Messina-Kleinman, M.P.H.
drkoop.com Health Columnists

Cigarette flavors have gone through many changes since cigarettes were first made. Initially, cigarettes were unfiltered, allowing the full "flavor" of the tar to come through. As the public became concerned about the health effects of smoking, filters were added. While this helped alleviate the public's fears, the result was a cigarette that tasted too bitter.

Filters Don't Work
Filters do not remove enough tar to make cigarettes less dangerous. They are just a marketing ploy to trick you into thinking you are smoking a safer cigarette.

The solution to the bitter-tasting cigarette was easy -- have some chemists add taste-improving chemicals to the tobacco. Unfortunately, some of these chemicals also cause cancer.

But not all of the chemicals in your cigarettes are there for taste enhancement. For example, a chemical very similar to rocket fuel helps keep the tip of the cigarette burning at an extremely hot temperature. This allows the nicotine in tobacco to turn into a vapor so your lungs can absorb it more easily.

Toilet Bowl Cleaner?
Most people prefer to use ammonia for things such as cleaning windows and toilet bowls. You may be surprised to learn that the tobacco industry has found some additional uses for this household product. By adding ammonia to your cigarettes, nicotine in its vapor form can be absorbed through your lungs more quickly. This, in turn, means your brain can get a higher dose of nicotine with each puff.

The complete list of chemicals added to your cigarettes is too long to list here. Here are some examples that will surprise you:

Fungicides and pesticides -- Cause many types of cancers and birth defects.
Cadmium -- Linked to lung and prostate cancer.
Benzene -- Linked to leukemia.
Formaldehyde -- Linked to lung cancer.
Nickel -- Causes increased susceptibility to lung infections.
If you are angry that so many things have been added to the cigarettes you enjoy so much, you should be. Many of these chemicals were added to make you better able to tolerate toxic amounts of cigarette smoke. They were added without regard to your health and with the intent to keep you addicted. As the tobacco industry saying goes, "An addicted customer is a customer for life, no matter how short that life is."

Make sure that you have the last laugh. Regardless of the countless chemicals in your cigarettes, quitting is always your option.

Perhaps this list of ingredients that are found in cigarettes is enough to make you want to quit smoking for good!

There are more than 4,000 ingredients in a cigarette other than tobacco. Common additives include yeast, wine, caffeine, beeswax and chocolate. Here are some other ingredients:

Ammonia: Household cleaner
Angelica root extract: Known to cause cancer in animals
Arsenic: Used in rat poisons
Benzene: Used in making dyes, synthetic rubber
Butane: Gas; used in lighter fluid
Carbon monoxide: Poisonous gas
Cadmium: Used in batteries
Cyanide: Deadly poison
DDT: A banned insecticide
Ethyl Furoate: Causes liver damage in animals
Lead: Poisonous in high doses
Formaldehiyde: Used to preserve dead specimens
Methoprene: Insecticide
Megastigmatrienone: Chemical naturally found in grapefruit juice
Maltitol: Sweetener for diabetics
Napthalene: Ingredient in mothballs
Methyl isocyanate: Its accidental release killed 2000 people in Bhopal, India in 1984
Polonium: Cancer-causing radioactive element



What's in a Cigarette?
by K. H. Ginzel, M.D.

For those who still don't know — let me emphatically state that cigarette smoking is a true addiction! To grasp this well-documented fact, one really doesn't have to study all the supporting scientific evidence. One simply needs to consider that no other drug is self-administered with the persistence, regularity and frequency of a cigarette. At an average rate of ten puffs per cigarette, a one to three pack-a-day smoker inhales 70,000 to 200,000 individual doses of mainstream smoke during a single year. Ever since its large scale industrial production early in this century, the popularity of the modern cigarette has been spreading like wildfire. Here is the first, and perhaps the most significant answer to the title question: Addiction is in a cigarette.

Probing into what makes a cigarette so irresistible, we find that much of the recent research corroborates earlier claims: It is for the nicotine in tobacco that the smoker smokes, the chewer chews, and the dipper dips. Hence, nicotine is in a cigarette.

In contrast to other drugs, nicotine delivery from tobacco carries an ominous burden of chemical poisons and cancer-producing substances that boggle the mind. Many toxic agents are in a cigarette. However, additional toxicants are manufactured during the smoking process by the chemical reactions occurring in the glowing tip of the cigarette. The number is staggering: more than 4,000 hazardous compounds are present in the smoke that smokers draw into their lungs and which escapes into the environment between puffs.

The burning of tobacco generates more than 150 billion tar particles per cubic inch, constituting the visible portion of cigarette smoke. According to chemists at R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, cigarette smoke is 10,000 times more concentrated than the automobile pollution at rush hour on a freeway. The lungs of smokers, puffing a daily ration of 20 to 60 low to high tar cigarettes, collect an annual deposit of one-quarter to one and one-half pounds of the gooey black material, amounting to a total of 15 to 90 million pounds of carcinogen-packed tar for the aggregate of current American smokers. Hence, tar is in a cigarette.

But visible smoke contributes only 5-8% to the total output of a cigarette. The remaining bulk that cannot be seen makes up the so-called vapor or gas phase of cigarette "smoke." It contains, besides nitrogen and oxygen, a bewildering assortment of toxic gases, such as carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, acrolein, hydrogen cyanide, and nitrogen oxides, to name just a few. Smokers efficiently extract almost 90% of the particulate as well as gaseous constituents (about 50% in the case of carbon monoxide) from the mainstream smoke of the 600 billion cigarettes consumed annually in the U.S. In addition, 2.25 million metric tons of sidestream smoke chemicals pollute the enclosed air spaces of homes, offices, conference rooms, bars, restaurants, and automobiles in this country. Hence, pollution is in a cigarette.

The witch's brew of poisons invades the organs and tissues of smokers and nonsmokers, adults and children, born as well as unborn, and causes cancer, emphysema, heart disease, fetal growth retardation and other problems during pregnancy. The harm inflicted by all other addictions combined pales in comparison. Smoking-related illness, for example, claims in a few days as many victims as cocaine does in a whole year. Hence, disease is in a cigarette.

The irony is that many of the poisons found in cigarette smoke are subject to strict regulation by federal laws which, on the other hand, specifically exempt tobacco products. "Acceptable Daily Intake," ADI, is the amount of a chemical an individual can be exposed to for an extended period without apparent detriment to health.

In addition, there is the chemical burden from sidestream smoke, afflicting smokers and non-smokers alike. Based on the reported concentrations in enclosed, cigarette smoke-polluted areas, the estimated intakes of nicotine, acrolein, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and formaldehyde peak at 200, 130, 75, 7, and 3 times the ADI, respectively. The high exposure to acrolein is especially unsettling. This compound is not only a potent respiratory irritant, but qualifies, according to current studies, as a carcinogen.

Regulatory policy aims at restricting exposure to carcinogens to a level where the lifetime risk of cancer would not exceed 1 in 100,000 to 1,000,000. Due to a limited database, approximate upper lifetime risk values could be calculated for only 7 representative cigarette smoke carcinogens. The risk values were extraordinarily high, ranging from 1 in 6,000 to 1 in 16. Because of the awesome amount of carcinogens found in cigarette smoke and the fact that carcinogens combine their individual actions in an additive or even multiplicative fashion, it is not surprising that the actual risk for lung cancer is as high as one in ten. Hence, cancer is in a cigarette.

Among the worst offenders are the nitrosamines. Strictly regulated by federal agencies, their concentrations in beer, bacon, and baby bottle nipples must not exceed 5 to 10 parts per billion. A typical person ingests about one microgram a day, while the smokers' intake tops this by 17 times for each pack of cigarette smoked. In 1976, a rocket fuel manufacturer in the Baltimore area was emitting dimethylnitrosamine into the surrounding air, exposing the local inhabitants to an estimated 14 micrograms of the carcinogen per day. The plant was promptly shut down. However eagerly the government tries to protect us from outdoor pollution and the carcinogenic risk of consumer products, it blatantly suspends control if the offending chemical is in, or comes from, a cigarette. Hence, hypocrisy is in a cigarette.

But there is still more in a cigarette than addiction, poison, pollution, disease, and hypocrisy. A half century of aggressive promotion and sophisticated advertising that featured alluring role models from theater, film and sport, has invested the cigarette with an enticing imagery.

Imagery which captivates and seduces a growing youngster. The youngster, indispensable for being recruited into the future army of smokers, does not start to smoke cigarettes for the nicotine, but for the false promises they hold. Hence, deceit is in a cigarette. In summary, no drug ever ingested by humans can rival the long-term debilitating effects of tobacco; the carnage perpetuated by its purveyors; the merciless irreversibility of destiny once the victim contracts lung cancer or emphysema; the militant denial on the part of those who, with the support of stockholders and the sanction of governments, legally push their lethal merchandise across borders and continents killing every year two and one-half to three million people worldwide. All things added together: death is in a cigarette.

K. H. Ginzel, M.D., is Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology at the University of Arkansas. His work is concentrated in the area of nicotine and its effects


Put that in your pipe and smoke it,
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Nov, 2011 09:30 am
@engineer,
engineer wrote:

I think anyone who smoked during the 70's knew that cigarettes were hazardous. I was taught that in elementary school. To claim you were deceived by the tobacco companies is pretty bogus to me.
it was during the 50's and 60's that we can put some knock on the companies for being deceptive....which is why I say that all those responsible are now dead ....so give it a rest already
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Sat 19 Nov, 2011 10:01 am
@MontereyJack,
I understand this sentiment. I grew up breathing the stuff and can't stand it to this day. That said, smoking is legal and everyone understands the risks. Adults can do all manner of stupid things without government interfering, but somehow smoking invokes the nanny state. It's either legal or it isn't. This "legal but" stuff strikes me as wrong. If you want to smoke in your own home, go for it.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Nov, 2011 02:10 pm
I understand real estate agents find houses inhabited by smokers for a long time a hard sell. You wanna knock twenty or thirty thousand dollars, maybe more, off the resale value of your house, be my guest.
 

Related Topics

How to inspire students to quit smoking? - Discussion by dagmaraka
Kicking the habit - Discussion by Cliff Hanger
Back when smoking was allowed on the plane - Discussion by inretrospective
How Does Smoking Harm The Environment? - Discussion by pearltasty
smoking and discontents - Discussion by ossobuco
Smoking in movies: think of the children! - Discussion by joefromchicago
Do you smoke cigarettes? - Question by chai2
Does smoking really cause Erectile Dysfunction? - Question by Jennifer Malone
Lung Cancer News - Discussion by ossobucotemp
The Positive Side To Smoking - Question by mark noble
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/20/2022 at 02:50:39