Snuffed Out

Wow, these smokers are really adament about fighting to keep their right to smoke. The fight is about truth in advertising. Obviously, if one is already addicted to cigarettes, they believe it is their right to smoke. The concentration should be on the untruthful marketing to young people. When you label something as light, you make a false implication that it is safer than regular cigarettes. Fewer carcinogens do not prevent you from getting cancer. Smoking any kind of cigarette is dangerous and it kills. Yes, we are all going to die, but what quality of life do you want to have? Do you want to have to walk around with an oxygen tank? Or have an artificial voice because of destroying your larynx? Or a hole in your neck because you can no longer breathe through your mouth?...........Wow. How many of these comments are posted by someone who has in investment in the tobacco industry I wonder?

"Smokers who use a reduced-tar product, such as light cigarettes, compensate by taking larger puffs, thus drawing more deeply into their lungs the smoke of those products. " Ok, this was on page one of the article.

It states that the "light" cigarettes are reduced tar. There is something wrong with the compensation theory. If someone smokes like me, they only smoke 4-7 cigarettes a day, share half of them, and take 1 to 3 second drags like every other smoker I know. What's the point? I enjoy it like every other smoker.

Some of us actually are "LIGHT" SMOKERS who want to smoke "LIGHT" cigarettes and aren't trying to "compensate" for anything. I ENJOY what little bit i smoke, I don't LIKE the flavor of the "full-flavor" cigarettes, and I am actually offended by the fact that someone WHO HAS NEVER SMOKED is trying to say that "light" cigarettes need to be banned because THEY think that they know the habit.

By the way, researchers probably shouldn't try to give light cigarettes to "full-flavor" smokers. It's like giving somone who's used to a lot of sugar black coffee.... DUH, they are going to add sugar to it! As long as they can do it, they will "compensate" to make it what they are used to. Then look at every other habit. Although not as bad for you, a person who lightly uses cologne may eventually over-use it because they are used to it and can't smell it anymore. The bottomline is, smoker's aren't all stupid, and it isn't all the big companies. We know how this works, and we make it our choice. We like our choices. We uderstand them more often than you think.

"Smokers who use a reduced-tar product, such as light cigarettes, compensate by taking larger puffs, thus drawing more deeply into their lungs the smoke of those products. " Ok, this was on page one of the article.

It states that the "light" cigarettes are reduced tar. There is something wrong with the compensation theory. If someone smokes like me, they only smoke 4-7 cigarettes a day, share half of them, and take 1 to 3 second drags like every other smoker I know. What's the point? I enjoy it like every other smoker.

Some of us actually are "LIGHT" SMOKERS who want to smoke "LIGHT" cigarettes and aren't trying to "compensate" for anything. I ENJOY what little bit i smoke, I don't LIKE the flavor of the "full-flavor" cigarettes, and I am actually offended by the fact that someone WHO HAS NEVER SMOKED is trying to say that "light" cigarettes need to be banned because THEY think that they know the habit.

By the way, researchers probably shouldn't try to give light cigarettes to "full-flavor" smokers. It's like giving somone who's used to a lot of sugar black coffee.... DUH, they are going to add sugar to it! As long as they can do it, they will "compensate" to make it what they are used to. Then look at every other habit. Although not as bad for you, a person who lightly uses cologne may eventually over-use it because they are used to it and can't smell it anymore. The bottomline is, smoker's aren't all stupid, and it isn't all the big companies. We know how this works, and we make it our choice. We like our choices. We uderstand them more often than you think.

I feel i've known this for a while..... When Malboro puts out coupons or sends you stuff in the mail i recall seeing the "There is no safe Cigarette" or something explaining that lights are no better then any other cig. something of that nature anyway.

Generic Zyban
http://pillza.com/zyban.htm
Zyban is an antidepressant and indicated as an aid to smoking cessation treatment.
The best price:
150mg x 30 pills $59.95 US $ 2.00
150mg x 60 pills $109.95 US $ 1.83
150mg x 90 pills $189.95 US $ 2.11
http://pillza.com/zyban.htm

I have often wondered why our medical community is so unwilling to admit that they realy have no idea what they are talking about. while I do beleive that smoking is bad for you and that it can lead to health problems I have to wonder how many things occur naturally and smoking just gets blamed. My great grandfather smoked until the day he died and he was 101 when he died. they used to think that if you blew smoke in someones ear it would cure an ear ache. recently I sold my house and learned that we had to have a raidon inspection. I had never heard of this before but have since found that the health community beleives this may be the second largest cause for lung cancer in the nation. raidon is supposedly a oderless gas that is in almost every house. so needless to say I was amazed that I apparently could get cancer just from living in my house. my point is if a person gets cancer from paidon and he smokes witch do you think will get the blame and how will you actualy know what caused it. since we had no knowledge of raidon until recent years how many statistics have been inflated.

On a seperate note I would like to point out that these truth commercials we see on tV have to stop. as any marketing major will tell you there is no such thing as bad press. based on this they are infact advertising the very product they are triing to fight. notice how the big companies are not upset about these ads they have been geting free advertising for the last few years it is great for them.

Of course big companies will want to sell their products no matter what, that includes tobacco companies. But bottom line, who has the decision of buying or not, smoking or not, is the consumer. I mean, we all know what can happen to our health if we smoke, if we still indulge in smoking (I do sometimes) and then later on get sick, that will be our own entire fault for abusing our body and abusing the use of a product that shouldn't be abused (cigarette). Seriously, this is ridiculous trying to get the government to 'protect' us when we positively know it is bad and still do it.

OMG, smoking is bad for you no way, shut up. Who cares, do you really want to live forever. Come on, if you like the way it makes you feel do it. Now you might get sick at first if you never smoke, but keep it up, this will pass just like this dumb ass article. Before you know it you'll be huffing down those cancer sticks like a pro. Wash the smoke down with your toxic diet coke, or your carb overloaded regular. Then you can go outside and breathe your polluted air and drive to your local coffee house and caffinate your brain with cheap crappy coffee or maybe stop and get an artery clogging quarter pounder with cheese or get a chicken sandwich infused with estrogen or buy a fish sandwhich full of high levels of mercury. This could go on all day, so I guess if I'm one of the lucky ones I will just be murdered! haha This article is pointless they don't want to get rid of cigarettes, they are a cash cow. They are just making them look really bad, which they are, so they can tax them more! So don't be fooled into thinking that people are looking out for your best interest.

This argument is misleading. It is true that when you switch from full flavor to light cigarettes you over compensate and draw heavier to get the same effect. However, as most smokers who have switched can attest to, this overcompensation only last for a day or two until you become used to the lighter cigarette.

This is similar to the tactics used to describe the dangers of second hand smoke. The figure used is a 30% increased risk of lung cancer due to second hand smoke. But this statement alone is highly misleading...30% of what? Well, the average nonsmoker has less than a half of a percent risk, add 30% to that and we're talking about a minute increase. In addition, these figures relate to nonsmokers who come into daily and sustained contact with second hand smoke, such as bartenders or people who live with smokers, NOT the average person who gets the occasional whiff of smoke in a restaurant or bar.

Yeah, that's like saying that someone who snacks on light potato chips is simply going to compensate for the gap in calories by snacking on more chips. While this may be true in many cases, it removes the perrogative of the individual and personal choices from the equation. This is either a slippery slope argument or it depends on anecdotal evidence. Either way, there's some major logical loopholes here. Smoking is bad. It kills people. Don't get me wrong. But we are going to need more substance than this if we are going to win this battle. Big Tobbacco will see right through this sort of thing and tear it to shreds in court.

I am a smoker and have read better articles criticizing the "light" cigarettes than this. The one part of the argument that this article puts forward is that smokers may "compensate" for lower nicotine and tars by
inhaling more deeply or smoking more cigarettes, thus ultimately ingesting the same amount of the dangerous chemicals (or more) than if they stuck with "regular" cigarettes. In my view, this is like criticing more fuel efficient cars because the lower cost of driving will result in "compensation" by driving more miles and causing the same or more pollution than a less fuel efficient auto.

On the face of it, and so far as I know not denied by the anti-smoking lobby, the smoke from light cigarettes does continue fewer dangerous chemicals than the regulars so that those smokers who choose to smoke them and do not "compensate" by inhaling more deeply or by smoking more cigarettes should be reducing their health risks in much the same way that smoking fewer cigarettes should do. So unless the more extreme critics of smoking can show that light cigarettes are not really light, all this concern is overblown and a detriment to the health of smokers who choose to go light or cut back on their smoking.

By the way, I am not pro-smoking and approve of any reasonable efforts to keep non-smokers from becoming smokers. But attacking light cigarettes merely because some smokers may "compensate"
is not likely to cause more of them to quit. And not likely to increase their health risks either.