British American Tobacco to launch "safer cigarette" in 2006; cuts risk by 90%

edarrin said:
So anything substancial from the pro smoking side?
Click to expand...

There will be nothing substantial from either side until the product is launched and independent researchers get their hands on it. Even then it could take a long time.

edarrin said:
Well isn't that interesting. Tobacco people must be getting worried . Safer cigarettes. Right! Like the guy in the article said-its like jumping from the 15th floor instead of the 20th. End result is still the same.
Click to expand...

The jumping out of a building analogy is a bad one to be honest. It implies that everyone who smokes will die from it. Some people live to 90 and smoke every day. On the other hand, a few get lung cancer in their thirties. On average however, smokers tend to live 6 years less than non-smokers.

The point is that some people are always going to smoke tobacco, just like some people will always smoke weed, take heroin etc.

Now what if through investment in R&D they can reduce the carcinogenic nature of the product so that the average is down to 3 years (or 2 years or whatever)? Are you saying that is a waste of money? Do you believe in the principle of harm reduction?
 
Well isn't that interesting. Tobacco people must be getting worried . Safer cigarettes. Right! Like the guy in the article said-its like jumping from the 15th floor instead of the 20th. End result is still the same.

Hashish2020 Cigarette smoking is completly voluntary and also harms others who are forced to breath 2nd hand smoke. I would also bet a significant portion of those heart attacks are directly related to smoking as well. Wouldn't be surprised some of those car accidents are caused by people somehow f'ing around with a smoke too-looking for one, dropping it or burning themselves etc.
As for the others-that is third world stuff, not that it isn't important, just not relative to this conversation in the sense that smoking is primarily a 1st world health problem.

So anything substancial from the pro smoking side?
Click to expand...

Substantial. How bout my legal freedoms. I'll consent to some of the public smoking restrictions. But I feel that sitting in a crowded city meters from traffic is a moot point. How can be angry at a smoker for being an equivalent distance from you?

Um, smoking is a huge third world and developing world 'problem'. They smoke way more than the first world, cigarettes are one of the few luxuries most people over there can buy.

Hey, if you sit down next to me and started coughing because I'm smoking, you can move!!!
 
A lot of the posts above seem to be made with a lot of bias. Surely safer cigarettes are a good thing, whether you are a smoker or not? Why not at least give them a chance, maybe they aren't reducing the risk by 90% but even if it is less than that it's likely to be an improvement. People will smoke either way so it's stupid to get angry at the attempts to reduce harm caused by cigarettes simply because you may hate smoking and want it thoroughly abolished.
 
IAmJacksUserName said:
but they both use propaganda
Click to expand...

And so do tobacco companies.. propaganda is simply "material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause"

if these cigs really are safer, thats a good thing.. course if people then smoke them 90% more often, it's benefit will be negated lol
 
900% more often

if you can smoke 10 times as many cigs in 2006 as you did in 2005 and keep the carcinogen level the same, thats great. cancer is a cumulative disease that requires a long time to happen. by slowing the rate of carcinogen intake, i think this will make a significantly safer cigarette.

Did anyone try those eclipse cigs a few years back. they tasted like water vapor and were smokeless. didn't really catch on though. The real question isn't if they are safer, it's will people buy them even if they might cost more
 
Who cares? People will always smoke. Introducing "safer" cigarettes won't stop people smoking, and it is likely to encourage more people to start. Is this a good or bad thing...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top