"safe" cigarette?

Discussion in 'Community' started by Royal Pineapple, Aug 19, 2003.

  1. Royal Pineapple macrumors 65816

    Royal Pineapple

    #1
    http://www.newcig.com
    they are claming to have a "much safer ciggerette"
    you have to tell them that you are a smoker over 21 to enter the site :rolleyes:
     
  2. Powerbook G5 macrumors 68040

    Powerbook G5

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Location:
    St Augustine, FL
    #2
    The only "safe" cigarette is the one that no one smokes...I don't see how any cigarette can be safe or good for your health.
     
  3. rainman::|:| macrumors 603

    rainman::|:|

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2002
    Location:
    iowa
    #3
    they had me until

    okay, that's kind of freaky... definitely warrants more information. Marlboros aren't great for me, but what the hell kind of sick **** doesn't make ash? hmm...

    --few minutes--

    okay, hmm... the cigarette doesn't burn down. i'll be damned. it's like a tube filled with tobacco, that just has a hot coil in the front...

    that's totally weird... i may have to try a pack... they're kind of weak, so like 1/2 pack a day of Marlboro is, what, 19 packs of these? :D

    [edit]okay, to any pot smokers, it's basically a vaporizer, made very cheap and portable. Rock on! okay i'm way too into this.

    pnw
     
  4. Royal Pineapple thread starter macrumors 65816

    Royal Pineapple

    #4
    first thing that went through my mind too ;)
     
  5. MrMacMan macrumors 604

    MrMacMan

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2001
    Location:
    1 Block away from NYC.
    #5
    Haha, this makes no difference.

    Acually this is okay if you want to stop smoking with some step down program because you get alot less tar and nicotine.

    Alot less powerful.

    Like from 75% --> 25%

    ech
     
  6. RandomDeadHead macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2003
    Location:
    fennario
    #6
    My home town was a test city for those about 5 years ago. They don't taste like a cigarette, they tast like smoke flavored steam. They are hard to get lit, and they dont last as long. My neighbors kids used to have buy them for them, because they could smoke them in school and not get in trouble, since they dont produce smoke.
     
  7. Powerbook G5 macrumors 68040

    Powerbook G5

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Location:
    St Augustine, FL
    #7
    Wouldn't be so much better to just get some Nicorette and become addicted to gum than smoking?
     
  8. rainman::|:| macrumors 603

    rainman::|:|

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2002
    Location:
    iowa
    #8
    no.
     
  9. jxyama macrumors 68040

    jxyama

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2003
  10. cb911 macrumors 601

    cb911

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2002
    Location:
    BrisVegas, Australia
    #10
    Yes. then slowly get off the Nicorette and be free addictions for the rest of your life.
     
  11. rhpenguin macrumors 6502a

    rhpenguin

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2003
    Location:
    London, Ontario
    #11
    Personally, i dont think i would ever try this.. Granted it does look cool, i just dont think it would cutrit for me
     
  12. Sol macrumors 68000

    Sol

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2003
    Location:
    Australia
    #12
    Defeats the purpose of lighting up

    I wonder if there is a market for cigarettes that do you no harm. Isn't part of the cigarette's appeal that it is not good for you but that you choose to do it anyway? Better go cold turkey if you want to quit; "safe" cigarettes are just toys.
     
  13. SubGothius macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2003
    Location:
    Tucson, AZ
    #13
    "Smoke less and enjoy it more!"

    Interesting, yet little-known findings from the US Surgeon General's report on smoking over a decade ago:
    • Cigaret smokers who average no more than 5 cigarets daily have mortality rates identical to nonsmokers;
    • Cigar smokers who smoke up to 2 cigars daily also have mortality rates identical to nonsmokers;
    • Pipe smokers who inhale (a rarity) also have mortality rates identical to nonsmokers;
    • Pipe smokers who don't inhale (as is typical) have mortality rates 20% lower than nonsmokers.
    Well, praise "Bob"!

    Some recent studies even show possible mental and physical health benefits from such moderate exposure to tobacco smoke; only problem is, few smokers can moderate their smoking to that level. Myself, I've been smoking an average of ~5 cigs per day since I first started over a decade ago, just never really felt like smoking any more than that, but of course, I usually only smoke the good stuff -- life's too short for cheap smokes! :D

    (I'd compiled that very list back in college in the early '90s, tho' I haven't updated it in years, and I'd made it available via "finger" to my college email address -- even got me a mention in Boardwatch as a perfect example of providing information via "finger server" in those pre-Web days. I was actually surprised to see my infamous smokelist still floating around out there in 'Netland, and even HTML-ized by someone -- the text version shows the original format of my old .plan file as formerly served via "finger".)

    Oh, and check out the claims made by Star Scientific, makers of Gunsmoke and Buz cigarets -- the latter have a great pack/filter design and interesting "sting" to the taste, but harsh my throat after a couple packs in a row (but I usually switch brands with every pack anyway and tend to carry a few different packs and rolling tobaccos with me most of the time, variety being the spice o'life and all... %^).

    "A hobby, not a habit; smoke less and enjoy it more!"
    - a line from my email .sig, circa 1993 (props to Santa Fe Natural Tobacco, pre-Philip Morris, for the second half of that slogan %^)
    [​IMG]
     
  14. Powerbook G5 macrumors 68040

    Powerbook G5

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Location:
    St Augustine, FL
    #14
    With second hand smoke being as bad if not worse for non smokers, it wouldn't be surprising that the mortality rates may be close to the same between the two...I'm sure a child who never smokes is at just a high of a risk for lung cancer than the parents who smoke in front of that child...
     
  15. rainman::|:| macrumors 603

    rainman::|:|

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2002
    Location:
    iowa
    #15
    so you're saying that every person in said studies are exposed to a constant and steady amount of secondhand smoke that is equal to the firsthand smoke per smoker? Because that's incredibly improbable.

    What's more likely is that you've never heard anything but people condemning cigarettes to "death sticks". Truth is, they have a lot of different effects on the body, not all negative...

    back on subject... bought a pack of these... taste and smell like ass, but that's probably because i'm not yet smoking them right. The smoke is very thin tho, and almost none comes off of the cig itself.

    Very odd little things.

    I don't like certain parts, like the fact that you can't tell if one is lit or burnt unless you turn it around and look at the cherry. Plus, there's something satisfying about stubbing out a cigarette butt in an ashtray hard enough to break it when you're pissed...

    btw, to several people above: the title of this thread is misleading, they're not "safe" cigarettes, they're simply "maybe safer"... which i doubt. The eclipse website is very clear in that these pose as real a health risk as normal cigarettes. It's just a different method of delivery.

    pnw
     
  16. Powerbook G5 macrumors 68040

    Powerbook G5

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Location:
    St Augustine, FL
    #16
    It just seems a little skewed to truly believe someone who smokes regularily is going to be as healthy as a non smoker who isn't exposed to the smoke. I also don't like how children are subjected to it in some households, I mean, it's the parent's choice how they treat their bodies, but I'd hate to be little Johnny who finds out from the doctor that 18 years of living at home has left him with a nice serving of lung cancer.
     
  17. simX macrumors 6502a

    simX

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    #17
    Actually, I believe that secondhand smoke is sometimes more harmful, because of the lack of the filter that comes from the cigarette. I'm not sure about this, though.
     
  18. actripxl macrumors 6502

    actripxl

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #18
    Reality Check

    Ok guys this crap about smoking 5 a day and being the same as a non smoker for mortality is just crap. I'll be a Dr. in 8 months hopefully and if there is ONE cause that is repeated over and over again for numorus pathologies is smoking especially in oral cancers. Believe me guys it is not funny seeing a person with no tounge and half a lower jaw missing. Sure smoking may have some benefits but of the top of my head none that outweigh its negative effects. Different people react differently to any substance so just cause your neighboor smoked for 50 yrs doesnt mean you'll be that lucky, with the reality being that if you do live and smoke that long chances are you really won't be in very good conditions in those final years. If you smoke more power to you but don't fool yourself that its reall not that harmful just because of some report when there are a hundred others displaying quite the contrary. p.s. I don't smoke so I won't have a problem telling this to my patients, but some other students do so how would you feel a Dr. that smokes telling you not to or for that matter an obese Dr. telling you to lose weight. Personally I think I'd just start to laugh in their face, but that's just me.
     
  19. NavyIntel007 macrumors 65816

    NavyIntel007

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2002
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    #19
    Re: Reality Check

    hmm.... what's for dinner?

    Smoking is stupid. The idea that you are going to suck in smoke, the same stuff that kills you in a fire and it's suppose to be healthy... is rediculous.

    Period.

    My girlfriend has asthma because her father is a smoker... how's that for healthy?
     
  20. Royal Pineapple thread starter macrumors 65816

    Royal Pineapple

    #20
    where can you get them?
     
  21. SubGothius macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2003
    Location:
    Tucson, AZ
    #21
    Secondhand smoke: mind the hype!

    If you think about it or observe closely, you'll realize that most secondhand smoke is doubly filtered -- once via the filter tip itself, when the smoker takes a drag to inhale, then again by the smoker's lungs, as they inhale and then exhale. Very little smoke rises from the lit end by itself, compared to how much smoke is produced and drawn thru the filter when taking a drag and then exhaling.

    The actual research findings regarding the effects of secondhand smoke, if you go to the trouble of reading the studies, have been egregiously exaggerated and over-hyped by the media, looking for a sensational story, and by the more radical proportion of anti-smoking activists, looking for a way to ban smoking by demonizing smokers as causing grievous harm to others rather than just themselves.

    If you take the studies themselves (not the media/activist hype) at face value -- without even examining the studies' methodologies and data with a critical eye -- then the most you can say is that decades of daily, constant exposure to secondhand smoke may increase risks of serious disease and mortality by a fraction of a percent; e.g. lung cancer rates rise from a fraction of 1% (in nonexposed nonsmokers) to a slightly larger fraction of 1%.

    Thus, the only people whose health is "protected" by laws prohibiting smoking in restaurants and bars are those who unavoidably spend their entire working carreer in the presence of patrons' secondhand smoke -- namely, the owners and managers of those establishments, who are free to set smoking policy in their own establishments according to their concern (or lack thereof) about the risks. What about their employees? Assuming they don't smoke (and I have yet to meet a barkeep or table server who doesn't), they are free to seek employment at a nonsmoking establishment; nobody is unavoidably compelled to work anyplace or at any job if they don't want to for whatever reason.

    The EPA report that started the firestorm of secondhand smoke controversy was itself an enormous travesty of science and statistics. They had examined the available research regarding secondhand smoke, to see if they warranted any public-health concern or action, and found that all such studies to date were inconclusive -- unable to demonstrate any statistical link between secondhand smoke and health effects whatsoever.

    Then, still curious to see if any further research studies were warranted and acting on pure speculation, the EPA did something highly specious (to say the least) that threw statistical and scientific method and validity out the window; they merged all the raw data from those previous studies -- with all their widely varying sample groups, criteria, methodologies, etc. -- into one big data set, applying mathematical adjustments where necessary to make all the data compatible. However, standard statistical analyses of even this merged and manipulated data set revealed an utter lack of correlation between health effects and exposure to secondhand smoke.

    That's when the EPA decided to fly in the face of science and statistics even further, figuratively steamrollering the corpse of the validity they had already defenestrated. Taking the manipulated and merged raw data again, they "lowered the bar" on what they would regard as significant deviations in their analysis of the data, essentially treating some previously "random noise" as instead being "correlatable signal" (I will pause at this point for suddenly apoplectic statisticians to overcome their conniptions and calm down here).

    That's how the EPA derived their "findings" that decades of constant exposure to secondhand smoke could conceivably raise a person's risks by the minimum measureably significant degree over nonexposed nonsmokers, but that further studies with better validity, better organization, and better funding of course, were necessary to establish or refute these tentative findings conclusively. The media, however, ignored the EPA's statistical fudging and their caveats about that fudging and the tentativeness of their findings, and further ignored the actual degree of risk suggested by the fudged data and analysis, and instead they just trumeted the sensationalist line that "EPA proves secondhand smoke is deadly!!!".

    This kind of hype and absolutism comes from ignorance (or willful disregard for) the less-spectacular and damning details of dosage, duration, and degree. You can die from drinking too much water, too -- "Water is deadly!!!" -- but up to several glasses a day won't do you any harm. Of those patients whom physicians enounter with smoking-related illnesses, how many of them only smoked 5 cigarets per day? How many smoked a whole pack or two a day? BTW, note that the 5-a-day statistics were from the US Surgeon General's report on smoking a decade ago; are you now dismissing the USSG's methodologies and statistics?

    As quoted by someone else's .sig in these forums:
    "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."
    -Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, physician and author (1859-1930)

    "Don't believe the hype!"
    - Flava Flav
    [​IMG]
    "Sorry, I didn't mean to get on a rant, here..."
    -(ibid. below %^)
     
  22. rainman::|:| macrumors 603

    rainman::|:|

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2002
    Location:
    iowa
    #22
    i wrote a long, drawn out post, but i think i can sum it up.

    Smoking is stupid. Some of us still smoke. Deal with it.

    pnw
     
  23. Powerbook G5 macrumors 68040

    Powerbook G5

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Location:
    St Augustine, FL
    #23
    To each there own, I was just confused (to say the least) by the claim that smoking is beneficial to your health...it just makes no logical sense :confused:
     
  24. scem0 macrumors 604

    scem0

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    back in NYC!
    #24
    personally, I think there is nothing as unappealing as smokers (no offense meant to anyone)...

    They are bad for your health, they make you smell bad, they make most things you own smell bad, and they make public places smell bad.

    I never want to even touch a cigarette. Haven't tried one, never plan to.

    Cigarettes are just gross.

    Health class has also given me ample reason to dislike them. All the chemicals, poisons, and harmful substances in them really scare me.

    Cigarettes in general scare me. It scares me the effect ive seen them have on people's lives. Same goes for most adicting things, I don't want to risk gettin addicted, so I am going to stay far away from them.

    But I also fully agree with this. I just don't think I could ever stand spending lots of time around someone who smokes. Smoking creates a general unpleasantness IMO. But I wont avoid people who smoke or anything. Ill just avoid having a very close relation with them.

    scem0
     
  25. rainman::|:| macrumors 603

    rainman::|:|

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2002
    Location:
    iowa
    #25
    i got mine at a Kum & Go, don't remember if they're national or regional. There's a store locator on the eclipse website, gives you maps and everything... you probably need to help the clerk find them, they were on the very bottom shelf pushed back in the corner in mine... and the clerk had no idea what they cost. i guess they don't sell a lot of them :) let me know what you think of them if you try, would be interesting to hear a second opinion. i could definitely feel a difference, it felt like nothing going in, and i blew out a ****load of smoke. think i'm taking too big of hits... gave me a nic rush, could have been the different chems tho (i haven't smoked anything but my regular for several years)... the damn thing hardly made any direct secondhand smoke tho, i was impressed. i didn't have to hold my hand away from the table at the tavern tonight...

    pnw
     

Share This Page