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

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