It’s not surprising for an ex-smoker to be interested in this subject; albeit, it’s now approximately my 7th time of giving up.. Over the years, It’s often crossed my mind because, quite simply it wasn’t very hard for non-alcoholic beverages to ‘hit the market’ as soon as alcohol problems became more notable, or I should say ‘noted’ as it would always have been a problem. There’s been much to say about marijuana even having ‘less damage’ to a persons lungs and overall ‘health‘. If you live in Australia, you’ll also remember an advertisement that used to be on Television (I found it a bit ridiculous though..) as it depicted a ‘chemical, conical flask’ of sorts, eerily oozing vaporous smoke.. while it described all sorts of ‘chemicals’ that your lungs are absorbing etc. Now pardon me; but most of those chemicals are added or absorbed when the tobacco is grown and with the cigarette manufacturing, are they not? Like the pesticides and an absolutely ridiculous and exorbitant amount of chemicals, by the way.
One example: quite simply they don’t ‘need to burn longer / faster’, this is obviously a method of ‘selling more cigarettes’ in my point of view. Therefore, while they are trying to convince the world how harmful and toxic cigarettes are, they could be spending time also working on removing all of these harmful and carcinogenic chemicals from the tobacco! I’ve tried ‘holistic’ cigarettes in the past.. some taste like marshmallow though!
From Health Literacy
The main ingredient in cigarettes is tobacco. Tobacco is a green, leafy plant that is grown in warm climates. Farmers use many chemicals to grow tobacco. They use fertilizers to make the soil rich and insecticides to kill the insects that eat the tobacco plant.
After the tobacco plants are picked, they are dried, and machines break up the leaves into small pieces. Artificial flavorings and other chemicals are added. Some chemicals are put in cigarettes to keep them burning; otherwise, they would go out.
There are over 4,000 chemicals in cigarettes. 51 of them are known to be carcinogenic. A carcinogen is something that causes cancer. Cancer is a disease that often kills those who have it. There are many types of cancer: breast, lung, larynx, stomach, prostrate, kidney, leukemia (cancer of the blood), etc. In all kinds of cancer, the cells keep dividing and forming new, abnormal cells. These cells are not normal or healthy.
The Circulation report suggests the tobacco industry is preparing for another scientific battle, this one involving the allegedly “reduced-harm” tobacco products. Policy makers, tobacco companies and their critics are currently debating claims about the possibility of a less-harmful cigarette and whether the U.S. Food and Drug Administration should regulate such products.
Tong and Glantz describe an industry executive as stating that the research priorities in developing biomarker assays for the so-called “reduced-harm” products are not to establish any real effects or long-term clinical impacts from secondhand smoke. They suggest such efforts by the industry are being done to demonstrate the elimination of potential elements, such as odor or a chemical compound, in cigarette products without admitting existing health impacts.
The two authors emphasize that their overall analysis of the industry’s memos, letters and reports indicates the need for caution in the current debates about tobacco-industry regulation and the potential development of what the industry claims are “reduced-harm” products.
“The tobacco industry’s efforts at manipulating scientific literature as a way to serve their economic and political needs continues to this day,” said Glantz. “Despite the overwhelming and unbiased epidemiological and biological evidence, our analysis of industry documents shows how tobacco companies are continuing to market a dangerous product in any way they can.”
The Circulation study was funded by an American Heart Association Western States Postdoctoral Fellowship and a grant from the National Cancer Institute. The primary source for tobacco industry documents was UC San Francisco’s Legacy Tobacco Document Library.
From Above Top Secret
I realize that smoking cigarettes is bad for you. The fine particulates and super heated air being inhaled can be harmful.
That said, is additive free tobacco “better” for you than other tobacco that is sold?
Anyone who has watched “The Insider” knows that nearly all of the big tobacco companies put over 1000 additives into their cigarettes and rolling tobaccos. These are to make the nicotine enter your system faster and make the tobacco burn faster. The whole concept is referred to as a “nicotine delivery system”.
Modern cigarettes are highly unnatural—thoroughly engineered to be efficient nicotine delivery devices, and processed with chemical additives to make them easier to smoke and to prolong their shelf life.1,2 But they have a heritage that may suggest to some that they are, in fact, natural. They are associated with the natural world through their most well‐known ingredient, tobacco, which has been cultivated in the Americas for thousands of years. Moreover, in the US, Native Americans, stereotypically viewed as having an intrinsic connection with nature,3 are intimately linked to tobacco through the image of the peace pipe. The perception that cigarettes are natural may suggest to some that smoking as a social practice is, therefore, inevitable: if people have always smoked, they will always smoke, so there is little point in contemplating or working toward a smoke‐free society. The idea that cigarettes are natural may also help smokers downplay the risks of smoking, as “natural” risks inspire less concern than unnatural ones.4
The history of smoking dates back to as early as 5000 BC in the Americas in shamanistic rituals. With the arrivals of the Europeans in the 16th century, the consumption, cultivation, and trading of tobacco quickly spread. With the modernization of farm equipment and manufacturing bore the cigarette following reconstruction in the United States. This method of consumption quickly expanded the scope of consumption, which grew until the scientific controversies of the 1960s, and condemnation in the 1980s.
On an ending note.. ‘e-cigarettes’ just don’t ‘do it for me’… 😀
As to the title of this post, well ‘I wish’… 🙂
Apanache 