NEWS: Hand-rolled cigarettes 'more carcinogenic'

[Splatt]

Hand-rolled cigarettes 'more carcinogenic'

By Jack Kim in Seoul
September 05, 2007 07:37pm

SMOKERS of hand-rolled cigarettes tend to consume less tobacco, but face a greater risk of developing lung cancer than those who smoke manufactured cigarettes, a study on Norwegian lung cancer patients has found.

Norway is one of the last Western countries that still use a significant amount of hand-rolled tobacco, amounting to one-third of tobacco sales, according to the study released today.

While smokers of hand-rolled cigarettes "consumed (fewer) cigarettes, and statistically had fewer years of smoking, hand-rolled cigarettes were more carcinogenic, resulting in a higher incidence of lung cancer development", the study by Heidi Rolke, of Norway's Sorlandet Hospital, said.

The paper was presented at the World Conference on Lung Cancer in Seoul.

Lung cancer is one of the most common cancers in the world, with more than 570,000 people in Asia dying from it each year, or 1 every minute. Globally, it kills 1.3 million people each year.

More than 80 per cent of patients who had lung cancer in the study of 333 people primarily smoked hand-rolled cigarettes.

Hand-rolled cigarettes tended to be loosely packed with tobacco, but had significantly higher nicotine and tar content because they were rolled without filters, Dr Rolke said.

Jonathan Samet of Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health said similar findings had been documented in the higher rate of cancer among Hispanic women in the southwestern US who tended to hand roll cigarettes.

"There is, perhaps, an indication that we should be concerned if rising prices for manufactured cigarettes would lead to substitutions," Dr Samet said.

News.com.au

 

[intravenous]

I roll my own cigarettes, I just buy a pack of 130 filters for a couple of bucks and pop one into each.

 

[Splatt]

Probably safer to get Extra Slims than use the new filters the Australian cigarette companies are now using, seeing as they dont have to state mg carbon monozide or nicotine content now. They can do as they please.

 

[intravenous]

Yeah, I'll generally get ranch super slims, they're the perfect size to stick into your mouth, taylors are too fucking big in diameter.

 

[Immortal Teknique]

333 people is just inadequate when talking about sample size.

 

[angel1274]

gee im glad I use filters then, does that mean smoking rollies with filters would be healthier than taylors ? I just love putting the word healthier and smokes in the same sentence . And another thing I found u might smoke less with rollies but they dont burn as quick as taylors so there is less wasted so in end u probable inhale more smoke in the long run .

 

[gumby11]

Its pretty obvious that a rolly without a filter is going to be worse than any cig with a filter. Personally, I like the venti micro slims (the ones that come in little tubes.) My Norwegian friend told me that smokers are switching to "snoosh" in Norway. Snoosh is tobacco in a little paper thingy that you put on your gums. I tried one and it was so different to cigs. It was like mild coke no shit. Apparently dentists in Norway reckon its good for your teeth and gums.

 

[technoHarmony]

Its pretty obvious that a rolly without a filter is going to be worse than any cig with a filter. Personally, I like the venti micro slims (the ones that come in little tubes.) My Norwegian friend told me that smokers are switching to "snoosh" in Norway. Snoosh is tobacco in a little paper thingy that you put on your gums. I tried one and it was so different to cigs. It was like mild coke no shit. Apparently dentists in Norway reckon its good for your teeth and gums.

more love for the micro slims
most convenient way to carry filters ever.

 

[gumby11]

more love for the micro slims
most convenient way to carry filters ever.

Yeah you can carry them in your pouch and they dont dry out the tobacco. Plus they feel way nicer than other filters when you inhale.