Talk:Cigarette/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

When there are several scientific studies corroborating a claim, please refrain from using language like "purported"

When you can only cite one study corroborating a counterclaim, please refrain from using language like "several studies"

Please do not delete references to scientific papers, particularly those published by the US Surgeon General in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, then insert NPOV language like the sort described above

That is all.

Tarcieri 03:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh, can someone delte that warning at the top of the article? its not very professional and doesnt appear on the edit page.

I believe I just deleted it. It was kinda funny, in a weird and twisted way.--RattBoy 00:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

---

I notice that probably 60% of the Content and Health Effects section is really about legal issues. That should be gone over and moved to Legal by someone. I might do it if someone else doesn't, but I'm too lazy at the moment Czoller 07:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

---

The line "Second-hand smoke, however, has been shown to have no negative health effects by the World Health Organisation" is clearly biased anisa ali in 8sv is a dumb person nd misleading. The wiki on passive smoking clearly mentions that the study concluded that there is risk associated with passive smoking, however the link on "no negative health effects" has claims on the WHO withholding a report that rubbishes the risks of passive smoking. Line has been appropriately changed. Anish7

I deleted the line in "Consumption" that said Greece has the highest rate of adult smokers in the world, at 80 percent. This contradicts data from both the WHO and Encarta online which suggests that Greece a smoking rate of 38 percent, which doesn't even rank in the top 20 smoking countries.

See

http://encarta.msn.com/media_701500668_761579162_1_1/Prevalence_of_Smoking_by_Country_in_the_World.html

---

What about the different kinds of cigarettes and packs, like hard pack, soft pack, 100's, menthols, etc? Urbster1 05:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Visa and MasterCard really refuse payment for online cigarette stores? I doubt that as I am curently smoking a cigarette I aquired n just this way.

---

Can anyone write about Eclipse, Accord and Star Tobacco? These are so-called "safer cigarettes."

• http://www.eclipse.rjrt.com/
• http://www.philipmorrisusa.com/
• http://www.starscientific.com/
• http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/cigarette/anat_text.html

---

Smoking increases the metabolic rate? Really? I have never heard of someone loosing weight by taking up smoking, although the converse is of course very true: I myself went from W31 to W34 after quitting smoking, and had to replace all my pants. Mkweise

• I have known people who've lost weight by taking up smoking, not that I'd advise it.
  • Likewise, I know people who have quit smoking and then immediately put on close to 20lbs.Grahamdubya 18:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• People lose weight from smoking, but not because of a metabolic rate increase. Nicotine is a stimulant and stimulants decrease hunger, so people are eating less when they smoke, and when they quit they want to eat more... at least that's what I was taught.Vellocet Malchickawick 07:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Aren't Djarum only a brand of clove cigarettes? I didn't think they make plain tobacco cigs.

18:18, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

They don't, but the article is about cigarettes, not plain tobacco cigarettes. (BTW, the only brand on the list that's made from only tobacco, without additional flavorings, is American Spirit.) Mkweise 19:27, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's pretty much impossible to find a cigarette that doesn't have additives (American Spirit and Winston claim not to have additives, but I have heard it alleged that although their tobacco is unadulterated, they simply move all the nasty chemicals to the paper wrapper instead). But even still, everything else on the list is a tobacco cigarette, adulterated or not. Whereas most people conceive of clove cigs as a different genre entirely. I would restrict the list to tobacco.

Matt gies

19:37, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Clove cigarettes have tobacco in them, the clove is only a flavoring added to the cigarette. I should know, I have a package of Djarum Black sitting in front of me!

This page could use a bit of polishing... User:Teen_smoker_guy

1. One guy was blowing smoke out the window as he rear ended another car at a red light. Not very fast, but good enough to be funny. 2. A pretty girl flicked a butt out the window just as a cop rolled up alongside. The butt bounced across the cops hood, and then its roof lights went on. Duh! 3. A trucker driving a dump truck which had dual fuel tanks under the cab doors. The driver flicked the butt STRAIGHT DOWN, BOUNCING IT OFF THE TANK. For about 1/25 of a second, my clutch hand fought my brain, and the brain won. The truck was obviously burning diesel, I thought, and diesel will actually put out a fire under normal atmospheric conditions. And even if it were gasoline I doubted the truck would have caught light. Still, it was an exciting 1/25 of a second. Better yet... is when you're riding your motorcycle you get a red hot butt in your:

 1) face (for all you 3/4ths out there) 
 2) jacket
 3) crotch

i've always wanted to pick up the butt and throw it back in the window of the perpetrator, but typically i just freak out and toss it away (not into other motorcyclists, mind you...)

Since both car drivers and cigarette smokers are engaging in singularly dumb-ass activities, I don't find it so surprising that their dumb-assedness not so infrequently crosses the boundary between domains and becomes a kind of interdisciplinary dumb-assery. Sure, it's a pain, but what do you expect from anyone selfish enough to poison the planet or dumb enough to poison themselves?

Note: the above testimonials come from an Everything2 node on the subject of "cigarette butt-throwing dumb-ass drivers". —No-One Jones 05:15, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The only dumbass I see is the one who has nothing better to do but call nicotine addicts dumbasses. I guess you don't believe in civil rights; it's my civil right to smoke cigarettes, whether the smoke is going to kill me or not, it's my choice, not the government's. I toss cigarettes out the window as often as possible just to piss liberals like you off. The day it becomes a crime to smoke (which I do see in the future in this "free" country we call America), I'm moving to Mexico. People like you hate freedom, you want to take away as much of it as you possibly can..

--"this "free" country we call America"??? You are not in America. This is an International English Encyclopaedia and insular phrases like this have no place here - even on talk pages!

Consider this me blowing smoke in your face, and tossing a butt on your front lawn.

--Ddhix 2002 14:33, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Look, I'm a dedicated smoker, just like you. I also happen to be a far-left liberal. So before you assume that anyone who hates smoking is a wimpy hippy, just stop. And look around a little tiny bit before jumping to a ridiculous conclusion. Grahamdubya 18:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

To user Ddhix 2002: What a rude comment! I find it sad that anyone would want to throw their life away by smoking. I am non smoker and always will be. Please refrain fromsaying such uncivil things like the comment you wrote above.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobsmith319 (talk • contribs)

• Yeah, blowing smoke in one's face and tossing a butt on one's front lawn, thus restricing one's right to clean air and a litter free garden. I guess you don't believe in civil rights. --Thomas 18:48, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PS (from Wikipedia's "Liberalism" article) "The word "liberal" derives from the Latin "liber" ("free") and liberals of all stripes tend to see themselves as friends of freedom...". You seem to be a little misinformed in your choice of words.

Please don't feed the trolls. 69.138.165.23 20:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Lets think about this for a moment... The right winger says that he throws ciggerates out of his window as often as possible to piss off liberals. He feels that it's a free country and he should be able to do whatever he wants. Ok, I'm going to assume being able to do anything I want means being able to shoot him on sight if I want to. However this puts him in a dilema, in his version of utopia he should be able to survive. Does it not make sense that freedom should be limited at the point where ones actions affect other people around them in harmful ways? As long as I smoke my stuff in my home, or my car, or a designated smoking area, it's no one elses problem, and as such it's non of their buissness. I would kindly ask anyone who couldn't respect that to STFU. However, if someone feels that because their smokeing is their own buisness, my lawn, my windsheild, and our streets need to be decorated by thier trash... screw them. There's a point where freedom requires responsibility. If your like the idiot up a few posts up and don't have that level of responsibility, you need good honest butt wipping behind the shed. If your 30 40+ and you still need an ass wipping, it's time for other alternitaves, like prison or whatever else.

The only reason people have problems with smokers is because they need someone to pick on. But why cripple the tobacco industry just becuuse its in vogue to complain about smokers? What about the hundreds of thousands of people who chain smoked for years without any ill effects? randazzo56 3-03-06

That has to be the most ignorant assumption I've read all day. I guess it's easier for people like you to ignore the facts. The facts that tobacco is dangerous to your health and the health of others. If you want to smoke, that's fine with me, but is it necessary to lie to yourself about the affects of doing so and have the audacity to lash out at others about it as well?

Actually there has been evidence that the effect to others (non-smokers) would require a large amount of prolonged exposure, not simply walking down the road. Of course it is easier to give the minority the glare and the lecture, then it would be to complain about the smell of the sewers, exhaust fumes, smog, cut grass (for those who suffer from such allergies), animal dander, perfume/cologne, etc. It is in fashion here to complain, and what is worse it that most sheep think it is their idea. If you want to take up a cause, give time and money to research. It is easy, just add up the amount of time you complain each month, multiply by your hourly wage (or an hour of wages at 35 hours/week) and pony it up. (FROM A NON_SMOKER).

This has become more like a forum for fighting over cig's and less like a discussion for improving the article. Let's try working on the article and less on each other's nerves. Oh, and please sign your comments by typing ~~~~ at the end of what you wrote. Thanks. Sjschen 03:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone find a better picture of some UK cigarette packaging. The example on the main page looks like it was picked up off the ground - which is where you see most of those things anyway in the UK.

This is ridiculous. Wikipedia doesn't call things "junk science". Stop adding your own opinion to the article. Also re: Howrealisreal's edit summary, how in the world would one prove that something "is not factual"? The burden is on you to properly attribute POV phrases. It's not my burden to prove that the tobacco industry's science is or is not "junk science". Original argument like that is beyond the scope of Wikipedia. Rhobite 19:45, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

I've breifly included why the scientific studies conducted by the tobacco industry are considered to be "junk science". You cannot claim to be NPOV when the content of the article equalizes the tobacco industry's studies with more objective, peer-reviewed scientific research that are clearly at a different level of validity. I agree my inital edits were incorrect because I did not say why they are 'junk' studies. --Howrealisreal 20:08, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fine, this is going on RFC. That's YOUR opinion that the studies are "deeply flawed". Don't add your opinion to encyclopedia articles. Hey look everyone, I guess it's OK for an encyclopedia article to badmouth big tobacco! Since they're so evil and all, the NPOV policy doesn't apply here. The only time we have to attribute opinions is when they're unpopular: Don't you dare say that the 2004 U.S. election was not stolen, or that Bill Gates isn't really the antichrist. But by all means, criticize evil corporations all you like. Everyone agrees with you, no need for a cite! Rhobite 20:11, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

No, I am just a representitive of this POV. I did not come up with this idea on my own, I was taught this. I think you are being very shallow in making this seem more personal than it really is. --Howrealisreal 20:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh lovely, I'm the one being shallow. Thanks for setting me straight, didn't realize you were the self-appointed representative of anti-tobacco POV. Your lofty self-granted status doesn't give you the right to boldly insert, um, the opinions of your constituents into articles. Rhobite 20:23, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

I think we have gotten as far as we can with this. I respect your point of view on this topic and perhaps I am mislead by feeling that you do not feel the same way towards how I feel. I am happy to allow this issue to be settled by general wikipedia consensus rather than continuing to argue in this pointless manner. I am sorry if I have vexed you, that is what happens when passionate wikipedia contributors clash I guess. --Howrealisreal 20:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RFC response: "junk science" is pure POV. You can say that other scientific studies not sponsored by the tobacco industry have discredited them, you can say that their methodology was criticised, and you can say that there is a general distrust of studies funded by those who are on one side of a contentious argument, and you can even say they are regarded as "junk science" by anti-smoking campaigners, but you can't just say they are "junk science" even if you provide the reasons. It's an expression of opinion. Read the

NPOV policy and it is quite clear. David | Talk

20:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RFC response: The above comments by Dbiv/David express my opinion on this question flawlessly. Tverbeek 17:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(Also a RFC response) Here's a possible wording(I would have added it but I'm too tired right now to find a source, and I think it needs one): "According to {As reputable a source possible}, these studies were deeply flawed due to their strong bias and poor methodology, and were considered to be junk science." Howrealisreal, would you find a reputable web page(guesses: Americian Cancer Society, Science mag article, or something like that) to put in as a source for this? (Make sure they do say the studies were flawed for the reasons listed and that they do refer to them as junk science. I agree with you as for the facts, but the glory of NPOV is that sourced facts are better, and I agree with that even more. Thanks to all of you for contributing to the 'pedia. JesseW 10:13, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks everyone for your guidance. I plan on using this source [1]: It's a prosecution memo written by Congressman Martin Meehan to Attorney General Janet Reno in 1994 that details how many administrators from the tobacco industry suppressed scientific information about the adverse health effects of cigarettes. For simplicity you can scroll down to the part about Joseph Taddeo, where the memo specifically uses the term "junk science" to talk about his attempt to claim that nicotine is non-addictive even though his own research proved otherwise. Furthermore, you can see countless other examples in this source that support my stance, specifically how many administrators and researchers of the tobacco industry were charged with:

• DECEPTION OF PUBLIC, 15 U.S.C. §52(A)(2)
• PERJURY, 18 U.S.C. §1621
• DECEPTION OF CONGRESS, 18 U.S.C. §1001

I know it's not the end-all-be-all, but I think this substantiates my position. --Howrealisreal 19:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Another RfC response: Obviously the tobacco industry uses junk science, but, for better or worse, we can't simply assert that obvious point as fact. We can and should present it as an opinion, properly attributed to a notable spokesperson. Another example of the use of the specific term is at [2], reprinting material from the American Journal of Public Health, including a reference to "the tobacco industry's 'junk science' arguments", although this may be in the context of second-hand smoke rather than the effect on smokers. (By the way, the article might be improved by adding a reference to the issue of second-hand smoke, also sometimes referred to as environmental tobacco smoke. I live in New York City, where smoking is banned in most workplaces ([3]) because of concern about this issue.) JamesMLane 17:05, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is interesting. Do you think there should be some type of merge with tobacco smoking? Especially see the talk for another discussion of junk science in the reverse context. --Howrealisreal 18:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't think there should be a merger. The two topics are different. Not all tobacco smoking is by means of cigarettes, and not all cigarettes are made of tobacco. As it stands, each article links to the other, but this one notes that some cigarettes are not tobacco, and the tobacco smoking article mentions that cigars are also an option. I think that's exactly the right way to do it. JamesMLane 20:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the chemicals are different in each type of tobacco smoking. Hookahs for example, filter out some chemicals. And cigarette paper adds other chemicals. So I vote to merge per nom. --

GoOdCoNtEnT

22:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The Brand section really needs some cleanup/improvement. I think it should only list the top 10 or so brands(by sales, probably) and a small(like 7 or less) collection of other noteable brands. Each of them should have a short explanation of why they are notable following the link. I just removed an external link added by an annon just today. I've added explanations to some of the ones on the list, but I don't know enough about cigarettes to fix most of them. Help is requested. Thoughts, responses, etc? JesseW 20:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Even during Ramadan?

Not sure , maybe not in public during Ramadan.

I've done some minor edits removing the cannabis references - check the history but the jist was that cogareetes are the common name for cannabis joints etc and it was going into the manufacturing process of joints...

So I just changed them to Tobacco but there might be a couple of references still there.

I just finished reading through the article and there seems to be a large amount of marijuana refrences when they should be refrences to tobacco - wes

Not all brands are chemically treated; therefore, the statement in the main article is misleading. Nat Sherman brand cigarettes (I only mention because this is the brand I smoke and know best), for example, contain no additives, fiber-glass, etc. Ix

They still will kill you.

FUCK THAT! IM GONNA KILL ALL OF YOU! JESUS CHRIST GET LIVES!

Does your assertion that "Non-treated Cigarettes will still kill me" justify the blanket statement that all cigarettes are treated with chemicals prior to sale?

Cigarettes will still kill me, so all cigarettes are treated with chemicals? Thats a non-sequitor if I've ever seen one. I am going to revise the article, since no one has raised any objections. Ix

I'm going to remove the "cigarettes contain 4,000 chemicals" statement. It's a bit too alarmist for a Wikipedia article, and has more of a place in anti-smoking propaganda. People usually think of

23:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The statement is that "tobacco smoke contains". Maybe its positioning in the article causes an unfair perception that the cigarettes are all treated bathed in chemicals during production. Either way, there should be a source for this. My personal experience is that the second-hand smoke haze has gotten worse since about 2001. It smells a lot worse and is a lot thicker. Makes me wonder if there's genetically modified tobacco in addition to the chemicals.--Pro-Lick 16:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I've searched for the actual categorization and quantitation of the chemicals present in cigarette smoke, but all I can find are uncited anti-smoking research papers with the same numbersIx

Treated with chemicals as in stuff like fragrance and flavours are added? Definitely. Inclusion of natural chemical "enhancer"s? Mostly yes. Intentional addition of toxins? Probably not. -- Sjschen 01:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

To user Ix: Your comment containing the F word is acceptable. Please refrain from using such words, and offensive language. Thanks bobsmith319.

If anyone knows why "100s" are called "100s", please let me know on my talk page. I thought it was from 100mm, but I didn't have a metric ruler at my workplace, and i'm unlikely to remember to bring one in next time to measure those things when i'm bored.

03:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. Ix 06:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I take it 100 is mm, hence 10cm. Where did this terminology originate from, as in the UK you can buy King Size, and Super Kingsize (which are approx the same length as 100mm) alhtough in the last 5 years or so i've seen these "100's" appearing more commonly so i'm gussing that 100's is a US term but I thought the US used imperial measurement. Strange eh? (Martin / UK / 04:39am, Feb 13th)

Also, do the 100s contain more tobacco per cigarette, or is the filterjust longer/cigarette rolled skinnier? I have heard both from many different people. I'm not a smoker myself, but if the 100s contained more tobacco why would they be sold at the same price as "shorts"? 10:21 23 June 2006

They contain some more tobacco and a bit longer filter. They are still the same diameter as a standard cigarette. The reason they're priced the same is that it costs roughly the same amount to make a pack, there's not that much more tobacco, and most of the price is taxes anyway. 66.232.210.32 00:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This part of the article is troubling:

" as well as second-hand smoke inhalation show no increase in lung cancer rates among U.S. white males in all credited observational studies."

There are many commercials today about people who did not smoke, and yet worked in restaurants where other people smoked and got cancer. There's even a lady who goes around lecturing people because this happened to her.

Commercials as evidence? I hope you are kidding.--Tooiha 08:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

---

From Moes Restaurant in Ottawa, I know her and the people she works with, unforunatly it turned out to be rather benign, and the goverment has requested her to return to work. Does not stop her commercials from being run every week, unfortunately. 216.208.38.26 18:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Where's the credible evidence that second hand smoke doesn't cause cancer? Accountable Government 08:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• There is no hard evidence either way. Plus, people can get lung cancer without exposure to tobacco, something people often fail to realize. With the different carcinogens people are exposed to every day, it's really difficult to determine one source that causes the cancer. I too though, would like to see some references to credible studies. It's troubling that the only source listed for this article is a single book from 1978.--Aleron235 02:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the Sale section seems like it would fit better under History.

"Major tobacco companies also pack their cigarettes differently, using the longer more potent section of the tobacco leaf in the end, and moving the short cut pieces in the front (also known as "shake"). The hybrid tobacco leaves a more potent addiction effect this way."

Does hybrid here mean the mixture of the two kinds of tobacco or a hybrid tobacco plant? How does this affect addiction? --Gbleem 17:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This section has gotten too long and is completely unorganized. In my opinion, a good course of action is to move it to its own page: List of slang terms for cigarettes. GilliamJF 06:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I added REAL slang terms in Norwegian for Cigaretts, why where they removed?--Fantact 01:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Devanatha 00:45, 22 April 2006 Removed chapter on Norwegian slang terms because of irrelevancy (this is an article in English) and uncorrectness: "In Norway Cigarettes are commonly called "sigg"(for a single cigarette) Uninteresting "gerro"(used by foreigners or immigrants) Irrelevant, not Norwegian. or "rørdd"(most commonly by Norwegians in eastern areas of oslo), No such word. If it were, it wouldn't be spelt like this. hand rolled cigarettes are often called "rullings". True, but uninteresting.

I was bold, and alphabetized what was a sloppy, unorganized list of slang terms for cigarettes. I moved it in its entirety to List_of_street_names_of_drugs#Cigarette. There you'll find every slang term you could want for cigarettes, alcohol, cannibis, etc. GilliamJF 07:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Obviously we walk a fine line here where it might be better to err on the side of keeping people away from smoking, but I think it would be best if we do not err at all.

Thus I would like to suggest that this article is not living up to the standards of NPOV. In my opinion, entire sections ought to be rewritten with the aim of greater neutrality.

May I also say that, even despite neutrality issues, I believe this article to be quite good. Good work all.

I pretty much agree. I don't think it would be better to err on the side of "keeping people away from smoking." The article must provide any relevant information on the topic and to keep opinion out of it while providing only fact and scientific evidence. Though I believe scientific evidence may keep people away from smoking, and perhaps that is what you mean. But in all honesty I believe this article has WAY too much about the health effects of smoking rather than the history of it. --Tooiha 08:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is not about "smoking"; it's about the cigarette. I would argue that this article needs to expand its history section significantly to include a discussion of the Industrial Age's affect on its mass production and the images and cultural meanings that were created for it by mass advertising. The "cigarette" as it exists today is a product of 20th century consumerism, and any article that does not include these transforming influences is not truly comprehensive.

It also needs to address that the product has changed over time to become what it is today -- a drug delivery device produced to instill addiction. Hmm? That's not a NPOV statement? See, if anything I think this article will never have a NPOV because ... what does that even mean here? The "cigarette" is what its producers design it to be, and from the fifties onward its producers have acknowledged it to be and have further developed it specifically to be a drug delivery device. If any POV should be weighed more, it should be that of the people who produce it -- they are the experts.

"The cigarette should not be construed as a product but a package. The product is nicotine. Think of a puff of smoke as the vehicle for nicotine." William L. Dunn Jr., Philip Morris researcher, after taking part in a 1972 Caribbean meeting held by the Council for Tobacco Research.

“If, as proposed, nicotine is the sine qua non (essential condition) of smoking, and if we meekly accept the allegations of our critics and move toward reduction or elimination of nicotine in our products, then we shall eventually liquidate our business. If we intend to remain in business and our business is the manufacture and sale of dosage forms of nicotine, then at some point we must make a stand.” Claude Teague from RJR; 1971

RJR realized that it needed to tailor its marketing to the reality that "most of those who have smoked for any significant time would like to stop," and most smokers "would stop using if they could." Also that RJR needed to contemplate the future scenario where smokers who want to stop can stop; if this happened, he wrote, RJR would "go out of business." Therefore, RJR "cannot be comfortable marketing a product which most of our consumers would do without if they could." From a memorandum dated December 1, 1982 to Research and Development Vice President Robert DiMarco showing that scientists at RJR had known for years that most smokers get "hooked" and are unable to quit.

“Most smokers see themselves as addicts. . . . Many fear they'd “fall apart” if they quit. . . . Interpretively, the typical smoker feels guilty and anxious about smoking but impotent to control it. Psychologically, most smokers feel trapped … “Speculatively, the decision to smoke is psychologically motivated … “Once that decision is made, smoking frequency is physiologically determined, with the addiction becoming more severe as smokers grow older … Commentary of a 1967 report commissioned by B&W which summarized the responses of some 1,400 smokers

Source: Final opinion of US v. Philip Morris et al. issued by Judge Kessler - http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/

In other countries, such as Egypt, however, there is no legal smoking age at all.

As in, it's illegal to smoke at any age? Or there's no minimum age, meaning anyone can legally smoke? Can someone who knows fix the phrasing? —Etaoin (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes I caught that and looked into it immediately, it is legal to smoke and buy cigarettes regarless of age in egypt and the last sentence has been clarified accordingly 216.208.38.26 18:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Did anyone else see that picture with the price for Camel cigarettes? I think that was a prank...

Its not a prank. it was an actual picture of how much it cost at a local gas station. Very expensive yes, --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 14:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The nation's top cigarette companies for the first time are selling smokeless tobacco products as more cities and states pass smoke-free laws. Some public health advocates warn that the products, to be sold in three cities as test markets, may stop smokers from quitting or entice kids and non-smokers.

Camel Snus, pronounced "snoose," went on sale this week in convenience stores in Portland, Ore., and Austin. Users tuck the tobacco pouch into their cheek but don't spit or chew. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. sells it in 15-pouch tins.

Taboka, a similar product by Philip Morris, goes on sale next month in Indianapolis. A 12-pouch pack costs about the same as a pack of Marlboros.

The pouches are new products for Philip Morris, which has 50% of the U.S. cigarette market, and R.J. Reynolds, which has one-third of the market. The companies face a shrinking cigarette market due to health concerns, price increases and smoking bans. Cigarette sales per capita are now half that of 1980.

Some adult smokers want a smokeless alternative but don't like current options, says Philip Morris' Bill Phelps.

"We're meeting consumer demand," says Mark Smith of R.J. Reynolds, which recently bought Conwood, a smokeless tobacco company. "Smoking bans are making it more difficult for adult smokers to enjoy a tobacco product."

The trend toward indoor smoking bans, designed to shield workers from secondhand smoke, is accelerating, says Bronson Frick of Americans for Non-smokers' Rights. Already this year, he says, 34 communities have enacted smoking bans, along with the District of Columbia and five states: Arkansas, Colorado, Hawaii, New Jersey and Utah. The laws don't cover smokeless tobacco.

The new products will carry warnings that they are not safe alternatives to cigarettes.

Smokeless tobacco poses fewer health risks, but smokers are unlikely to give up cigarettes entirely for it, says Greg Connolly, director of Harvard University's Tobacco Control Research Program. "It's like trading in your Mercedes for a tricycle." He says the new products will more likely attract non-smokers, those who might otherwise quit and smokers in a smoke-free place.

"This is an effort to keep people using tobacco," says Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

"During the Second World War they gave out free cigarettes to the soldiers and citizens." The "they" stuck out to me. It is a bit ambiguous, as it could mean the government who supplied the cigarettes to the soldiers, or the companies who supplied the cigarettes to the soldiers, or the company that provided the cigarettes to the government who provided them to the soldiers.

I have no source to back this up, but i am an American studying abroad in a German military academy,and have heard (from a German Colonel) that Germans were supplied with cigarettes during WWII to eleviate hunger when rations were thin. High-calorie foods were not widely available at the time, and soldiers can burn thousands of more calories per day than an average citizen.

Also, when lights, ultra-lights, etc are described as "not so strong", does that mean nicotine content or flavor? In Germany, they have banned the term of "light" because it is viewed as deceptive. They print the tar and nicotine amounts of each cigarette on the box.

It is true, however, that the ultra-lights (such as Phillip Morris' brand) contain significantly less nicotine than a Marlboro red (.1 mg per cigarette against .9 mg). I could take a picture of the boxes with this clarification, if anyone else believes it might help the article.

And please, this is not a blog to argue the effects of smoking. Could we please keep the cursing and finger pointing to a minimum? This is an encyclopedia. Servus.

The photo of the price of a carton of cigarettes in the State of New Jersey is grossly misleading. I was in NJ about three days ago and cigarettes cost between $5.75 and $6.00 per pack. This would equate to $60.00 and less because cartons are discounted.

According to R.J. Reynolds the average price of a pack of cigarettes in New Jersey is $5.96 as of 11/05. And for those of you who do not know a carton contains 10 packs thus, $95.87 does not sound realistic. If this photograph is indeed genuine and was taken in New Jersey then I guess the only thing left to discuss is whether or not it is misleading.--Tooiha 09:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have heard that eating tobacco can be fatal, yet cannot locate a source for this. It would be nice to know if this is truth or rumor. Thanks, Jason.

Hi Jason, of course it is fatal, just like smoking a cigarette can be fatal. --Robert Michel Smith 22:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)bobsmith319.

THE New South Wales government has reportedly invested in the owner of the world's biggest tobacco company.

The NSW Treasury has secretly purchased a significant stake in the owner of Philip Morris, which makes Marlboro and Longbeach cigarettes.

The government has not disclosed the size of its investment in parent company Altria Group, but documents show it is a top-10 holding in one of Treasury's two international share portfolios.

NSW Cancer Council chief executive Andrew Penman said the Government should ditch the Altria shares immediately.

"It is highly hypocritical for the government to convey strong personal health messages while at the same time profit by owning shares of a multibillion-a-year cigarette company," Dr Penman said.

Altria booked a net profit of more than $14 billion last year and owns seven of the top 20 cigarette brands around the world.

This does not exist for people to give opinions on the subject. If the material is not objective it should not be in any article and since the discussion page is to be used for deciding what should be in the article thus any opinion, etc should not be posted here.

"An estimated 4.5 trillion cigarette butts are littered in American parks, sidewalks and public places yearly. Most cigarette filters are not biodegradable. In fact, ninety-five percent of filters are made of plastic cellulose acetate and take many years to decompose.

There are 165 chemicals in cigarettes that birds and other small animals ingest thinking that the butts are food. Ingestion can lead to starvation or malnutrition if the cigarette butts block the intestinal tract and prevent digestion, or accumulate in the digestive tract, making the animal feel full and lessening its desire to feed."

I think this needs a citation. While it is obvious that cigarette butts do litter many parks, sidewalks, etc I do not know how realistic it is that cigarette butts block the intestinal tract and prevent digestion. It kind of reminds me of that urban legend about throwing rice at weddings and birds eating it thus expanding in their stomache and the bird dies. I know its not a perfect comparison, but I would just like to see a citation for such a strange statement --Tooiha 09:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"Approximately 5.5 trillion cigarettes are produced globally each year by the tobacco industry, smoked by over 1.1 billion people."

I doubt that the rest of the world along with the responsible American cigarette smokers only smoke about a Trillion cigs a year. Someone is wrong here. CStrong 17/07/06

Does anybody know who the first major cigarette company was to produce 100's and actually market them as "100's" (or king size or whatever they called them, just some special term indicating their length)? Also I'm wondering why 100's were produced originally; and what the target audience was. Well I'm not wondering about 100's specifically, but just longer-than-normal cigarettes in general.

Thanks! --JCipriani 15:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Pall Mall was the first to make and market 100 length cigarettes. Being a smoker, I think that 100s were made, either because that people like more of an effect of it (wanna smoke longer) or for it to be more appealing to females (as long and/or skinny cigarettes are usually associated with them). But, those I'm not too sure about. Vellocet Malchickawick 07:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The US Surgeon Generel recently made an announcement regarding the dangers of secondhand smoke. I feel that it's relevant information and should be added to this article, especially having experienced some of these effects personally (including lung disease & upper respiratory infections) as a result of years of exposure to my father's secondhand smoke. A news article regarding this announcement can be found here: http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/06/27/involuntary.smoking.ap/index.html

This entry seems to have a lot of politics behind it, so I'm hesitant to suggest a fundamental change, but I think we should define cigarettes in the opening sentence as "A cigarette is a paper cylinder (generally less than 120 mm in length and 10 mm in diameter) from which dryed plant material is smoked. Cured and finely cut tobacco leaves, cannabis buds, and cloves are often utilized alone or blended together." Any objections before I make the edit? Alvis 06:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • Article Content and Attitude

This article, especially attitudinally, is about as 'clinical' as a fanatical Southern Baptist Preacher laying on the fire and brimstone when the plate is empty. I regret seeing in a 'publication' which I normally respect.

• Agreed. The "toxins" section is especially disappointing, consisting of mostly vague descriptions of chemicals that more likely than not will not affect a human in any way in the quantities present in a cigarette. While there's no question cigarettes are bad for your health, the "toxins" section provides no encyclopedia-worthy factual information at all aside from a list (which, btw, I could probably add any arbitrary chemical to and nobody would be any wiser). It would be acceptable if it also contained the average quantity per cigarette as well as the MSDS toxicity level for that compound. I've removed silly ones such as "butane" and "methane", which are not toxins and thus don't belong in a list entitled "toxins". But yeah this article sucks. Not all of it; but most of it. If I was going to do a report for school, say, on cigarettes, this wouldn't help. In an encyclopedia I expect history, -useful- facts, and unbiased information. Ah, I love Wikipedia. At least it's good for math :P . --204.69.182.1 19:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC) (aka JCipriani when I actually remember to log in, duh)

Looking at the current definition, it seems apparent to me that it obfuscates just what a cigarette actually is. Any product, after all, is merely a manifestation of a particular conception, and the conception of what a cigarette is has changed -- I would say dramatically -- over the last 50 years by the very industry that makes it.

This means that any relevant definition should include any product re-conceptualizations in its definition or, otherwise, how can it be considered relevant? Definitions need to be as fluid as the things they describe, and I don't believe there is some platonic ideal cigarette that exists isolated in its "perfect form" in the heavens from which present manufactured derivatives are merely corruptions of this ideal cigarette and therefore need not be included in its definition; there is only the continuum of (cigarette) history.

The cigarette as conceptualized by the Tobacco Industry is a "drug delivery device" for the alkaloid nicotine. It is toward this target conception that cigarettes are currently designed and manufactured. The fact that nicotine is barely mentioned in an *entire* article on cigarettes is just odd, if not conspicuous. The Industry underwent a paradigm shift regarding the cigarette, and a relevant definition of the cigarette needs to address it.

So how do the people who actually make them conceptualize what they are doing?

Think of the cigarette pack as a storage container for a day's supply of nicotine. . . . Think of the cigarette as a dispenser for a dose unit of nicotine: it is readily prepped for dispensing nicotine. . . . Think of a puff of smoke as the vehicle of nicotine. . . . Smoke is beyond question the most optimized vehicle of nicotine and the cigarette the most optimized dispenser of smoke. William L. Dunn, a Philip Morris scientist/psychologist who later became its Principal Scientist

Thus a tobacco product is, in essence, a vehicle for delivery of nicotine, designed to deliver the nicotine in a generally acceptable and attractive form. Our industry is then based upon design, manufacture and sale of attractive dosage forms of nicotine, and our Company's position in our Industry is determined by our ability to produce dosage forms of nicotine which have more overall value, tangible or intangible, to the consumer than those of our competitors. Claude Teague in an April 14, 1972 report titled "Research Planning Memorandum on the Nature of the Tobacco Business and the Crucial Role of Nicotine Therein."

I'm going to rewrite the definition sometime soon so that it includes the Tobacco Industry's own current conceptualization of what they are making available to the market. Adian5 04:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Adian5

I removed the whole toxin list because it is completely silly in its current state. I already removed a couple of compounds which I am pretty sure are not any more relevant in tobacco than in any vegetable. Furthermore, a toxin is a natural poisonous substance produced by a plant, which doesn't apply to most of the points on the list. It should be called Toxic compounds in tobacco smoke or something like that.

If someone thinks this list should be in the article, then at the very least a rough indication of the concentration should be added. Han-Kwang 19:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That's funny, did we both come here at exactly the same time and think the same thoughts? I was thinking of removing it as well but didn't quite have the guys. I completely agree; although I think that at least a brief mention in a paragraph form of the star'd toxins would be appropriate, with or without specific concentrations.--JCipriani 19:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I came here to remove external links and then your edit caught my attention. :) Good point about the starred toxic compounds, go ahead. Go ahead. Han-Kwang 19:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Toxins

The following chemicals present in tobacco and/or tobacco smoke, while not all explicitly carcinogenic, can have negative health effects:

• Acetone - Affects skin, mouth, kidney, liver, nerve damage and birth defects.

Only relevant at high concentrations.

• Ammonia - Highly corrosive towards the alveoli in the lungs.
• Arsenic - Poisons organs and causes organ failure. May cause cancer.

Concentration probably comparable to other plants.

• Benzene* - Toxic. Classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Causes drowsiness, dizziness, rapid heart rate, headaches, tremors, confusion, unconsciousness, vomiting, irritation of the stomach and death.
• Caffeine - Increases energy and may cause restlessness.

If it is at all present in tobacco, the amount can't be more than a teaspoon of coffee. Should not be in this list.

• Carbon monoxide* - Causes drowsiness and headaches, followed by unconsciousness, respiratory failure, and death. Also causes ozone depletion.

Ozone depletion?? Come on! At the concentration present in tobacco smoke, it will decrease the oxygen-carrying capacity of the smoker's blood. Period.

• Carbon dioxide - No effects although when frozen (around -78.3C) will cause skin 'burn'.

Come on!!!

• Chloroform - Causes kidney and liver problems, birth defects and skin sores.

Provide a reference that tobacco contains any significant amount of this compound.

• Cyanide/Hydrogen cyanide* - Can cause a coma with seizures, apnea and cardiac arrest, with death following in a matter of minutes. Also faintness, drowsiness, anxiety and excitement. Dizziness, nausea, vomiting, sweating, weakness of the fingers and toes, difficulty walking, dimness of vision, deafness, decreased thyroid gland function and skin sores.

At the concentration present in tobacco smoke, see carbon monoxide above.

• DDT/Dieldrin - Causes tumours (generally of the liver).

DDT is not used anymore in (Western) agriculture, so why should it be present in tobacco?

• EPA
  .

Provide a concentration. I doubt it is present in toxic quantities.

• Methanol - Causes blindness, birth defects, headache, dizziness, nausea, lack of coordination, confusion, drowsiness, respiratory failure, unconsciousness and death

Only at high concentrations

• Nicotine* - Causes increased activity, alertness and memory, increased heart rate and blood pressure, reduced appetite, vomiting and nausea.
• Petroleum - Highly toxic to the body.

Huh?

• aromatic amines and inorganic compounds
  .
• Vinyl Chloride - Cause headaches, dizziness, loss of coordination, in severe cases may progress to hallucination, unconsciousness, respiratory failure, cancer of the liver, skin irritations, birth defects and death.

Huh?

• Potassium nitrate
  - Makes heart problems worse to those suffering from them.

* These are considered to have a large toxic effect.

---

To the "expert" criticizing this list:

Where are *your* citations? Who are you that you "know" the quantities of toxins in smoke that you can authoritatively be so dismissive as to what constitutes a toxic level?

Apparently, people who have really looked into it have something worthwhile to say. Take CO levels, for example:

"The range of cigarette smoke concentrations [of Carbon Monoxide] we have found, 1.6-3.7 % (v/v) is comparable to the range of 1.5-5.5% (v/v) reported from other studies [Godish 1985]. "Cigarettes clearly put out much higher concentrations of CO than most cars. In fact all of the cigarette measurements we made gave CO mixing ratios of greater than 1.0%, which is interesting in that this level is the usual "passing" value for cars which must have annual emission tests."

http://faculty.washington.edu/djaffe/ce3.pdf

Of course, smokers do not constantly breathe smoke as they smoke. They would have to breathe it constantly for thirty minutes, as this study points out, for it to be lethal on its own. Nevertheless, in smoke filled rooms, people might very well breathe enough to suffer symptoms of drowsiness and headaches.

And still more *real* info from Canada's "Tobacco Products Information Regulations" which force manufacturers to list emmision amounts of 6 toxic compounds, including:

Formaldehyde Formaldehyde is classified as a probable human carcinogen of medium carcinogenic hazard by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Formaldehyde can have drastic health effects on both smokers and those exposed to environmental tobacco smoke. Eye, nose, and throat irritation and other respiratory symptoms are just some examples.

Hydrogen cyanide Hydrogen cyanide is considered to be one of the most toxic agents found in vapour-phase tobacco smoke (what is left of the smoke once you remove the particulate matter). Hydrogen cyanide contributes to the acute toxicity of tobacco smoke. Many short-term and long-term toxic effects of cigarette smoke have been associated with its presence. Acute exposure to lower concentrations of hydrogen cyanide will cause weakness, headache, nausea, increased rate of respiration, and eye and skin irritation.

Benzene Benzene is a substance declared toxic under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. It is considered to be a substance which may have some adverse effects at any level of exposure. Benzene is also listed by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a Group 1 carcinogen. Smokers have an average benzene body burden about six times that of non-smokers.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/nr-cp/2001/2001_62bk6_e.html

The amounts of these chemicals vary from one brand or type of cigarette to the next. This is especially true of the tar and nicotine content, the range of which is so extreme that an entire carton of some brands of cigarettes might contain less tar and/or nicotine than a single cigarette of a "full flavor" brand.^{[citation needed]}

Major tobacco companies pack their cigarettes using the longer more potent section of the tobacco leaf in the end, and moving the short cut pieces in the front (also known as "shake"). The hybrid tobacco leaves a more potent addiction effect this way. Some cigarette companies offer "no additive" cigarettes that are viewed by some as marginally healthier.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.68.66.163 (talk • contribs)

---

I'm the "expert" you are referring to. I am not a toxicologist, but I know just enough about chemistry to have the original list of "toxins" (which should be called "toxic compounds") set off my bullshit detector and okay, maybe I overreacted a bit when I also dismissed the 10% of correct facts in the pile of nonsense.

You raise a few good points and I would be perfectly happy if you reintroduce those items into the list with the proper references. The point I tried to make is that describing toxic ingredients of tobacco smoke is only meaningful if the description matches the health risks associated with the concentrations that are present.

Han-Kwang 08:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Should there be a mention of the naming conventions with cigarette brands in the UK? Such as the term 'Lights' being banned and most manufacturers switching to terms such as 'Smooth' - or simply the colour of the packaging 'Blue', 'Gold' or 'Silver'. Was wondering whether this would be useful or crossing into the realm of pointless trivia.

Also, there is no mention of the idea being passed around to raise the tobacco age to 18 in the UK. Here are some articles on the subject: [4] [5]

Greggykins 12:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

While RC patrolling I came across this edit, which I reverted because it didn't really add any sources and it seemed to be acted a bit idealistic to the conditions of cigarette sales. Someone please check up on this who knows more about the topic. I added a POV-check tag because I don't believe the first version (or the anon's for that matter) is very good. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up a horrible paragraph regarding underage sales, police stings, and vendor busts in the United States. A good portion of it was redundant, irrelevant to the topic, and biased. I have trimmed the paragraph such that it now states the facts clearly, once, and without bias. Lumbergh 01:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't the police practice currently described in this article amount to entrapment? Benwilson528 14:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking - just to point out, having been involved with this in the UK they are very careful about what the young person wears and their make up because such claims of entrapment will weaken the case against the retailer. -- reeveorama 01:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The sections on sales and health effects have gotten rather large and unruly. I would recommend replacing them with brief synopses and splitting them off into their individual articles. That would also help prevent this article from drifting too far into related topics. Fagstein 20:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Wondering whether the position adopted in this article re: radioisotopes (in particular Polonium 210) being the primary cause of lung cancer is true. The two papers I've cited below seem to suggest otherwise. I'm not an expert on the subject by any stretch and would be interested in hearing what others think on this issue.

J Natl Cancer Inst. 1981 Jan;66(1):27-31. suggesting there isnt linkage between radioisotopes and smoking related lung cancer.

Hecht SS (1999) Tobacco Smoke Carcinogens and Lung Cancer, Journal of the National Cancer Institute 91(14) 1194-1210. states that there is not enough Polonium 210 in cigarette smoke to significantly impact lung cancer in smokers. Thoughts? MidgleyDJ 08:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC).

Also the claim re: 90% of lung cancers has the references of Dr. Koop, I've checked the link and cant find the relevant figures. MidgleyDJ 08:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should now remove the claims re: Polonium 210 - or at least clarify these statements. Thoughts? MidgleyDJ 11:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

An estimated 4.5 trillion cigarette butts are littered in American parks, sidewalks and public places yearly.

This can't be true -- that's roughly two packs a day for every single person in the United States, with not a single butt properly disposed of; and, what's more (if the Consumption section of the article is to be believed) it would amount to 82% of the annual global production of cigarettes ending up as American litter.

I changed it to a nonspecific "billions," which is probably accurate if not particularly precise. Anyone want to track down the real fact and add it, with appropriate citation?

I'm guessing that it's 4.5 trillion butts in toto in American public places, or 4.5 trillion per year in the whole world (though even that sounds high), or something like that..--Kiscica 03:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this is really encylcopedia material, but I was wondering if anyone would be able to find any sources or suitable web articles commenting on the (at least, personally) immense popularity of Native cigarettes in Canada, due to the high government taxation on commercial cigarettes. Myself, I can get a carton of cigarettes for $10CDN and know of many people who do the same. --golgotha85 16:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been having difficulty finding the LD50 of cigarettes. I found the LD50 of nicotine alone was 50mg, but I can't find the LD50 of the whole thing. Once found it should be added to the artical. Thank you,

Alex P.

7/20/06 —The preceding

) .

It's unlikely that the LD50 of "cigarettes" could be computed at all. —

fgs

00:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Lighter fluid in the paper???

This paragraph appears in the History section:

The Cigarette has evolved much since its conception, the thin bands that travel transverse to the "axis of smoking" (lengthwise) are filled with lighter fluid to facilitate even burning, and synthetic particulate filters remove some of the tar before it reaches the smoker.

Aside from being poorly written, this is ridiculous. Lighter fluid evaporates very quickly. I don't doubt that there is something in the paper to add to its flammability, but it sure isn't lighter fluid. And what is meant by "lighter fluid" anyway? A few different liquids are known by that name...Brian8710 10:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I heard somewhere that Potassium nitrate (salt peter) is added to aid burning, hence the sparks and crackles of cheap cigs, and would explain the "thin bands that travel transverse to the "axis of smoking" (lengthwise)" but as mentioned above, how could a volatile liquid stay on the paper for any length of time? There might be some very heavy paraffin oil, but even your standard paraffin (kerosine) evaporates reasonably quickly, so lighter fluid type hydrocarbon fractions, no way.

Total nonsense. Should be edited out.

Actually, it may not be lighter fluid par-say... but there is an accelerate in cigarettes. (Otherwise they would go out if not smoked...) ---J.S (t|c) 00:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)