It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. cigarette brands tops in cancer causing chemicals

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Much apologies if this has been posted; I always try my best to make sure my post isn't a repost, and I didn't come up with anything. The title says it all really, American cigs far more toxic than others

I tend to think most "conspiracies" are the results of like minded minded people pursuing a common goal, and due to lack of communication between often competing entities unintended consequences occur--often bad ones.

However, I'm stumped to think how American cigarettes could just happen to contain toxins in such significantly higher quantities than those offered overseas and other countries. This does give me the sense of a conspiracy, but I can't think why "they" would do this. I mean, I could conceive, perhaps, a scenario where international cigarette companies collude altogether to do this...

But why they hell are American cigs so much worse?!


[edit on 5-6-2010 by Threadfall]

LINK FIXED

[edit on 5-6-2010 by Threadfall]




posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   
My guess is that europe for instance is a whole lot stricter then the U.S when it comes to consumables.It is actually alot stricter in just about anything really.Take mercury for instance wich is not alowed to be used in devices in europe.


Food and drug regulations,all are a lot stricter.
It is a pretty safe bet to asume that those american brands being sold in europe (Or anywhere other then the U.S) contain less of these toxins,tho i hsve no proof of this other then the fact that europe is very strict with these things.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 10:58 PM
link   
broken link.

second line



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Your link doesn't work. Try this code: American cigarette brands contain more toxins

I'd say there's multiple reasons for this. We have a lot of natural resources that we exploit. I remember reading an article years ago that said during the Vietnam war, American soldiers needed much less embalming fluid than a native, because they were already so toxic that the body was harder to decompose. This was decades ago! When you consider our topsoil depletion, pesticide, herbicide, industrial polution...it's no wonder the average person in the U.S. is somewhat mad.

[edit on 5-6-2010 by unityemissions]



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 11:17 PM
link   
I'm 17 and I live in Canada. I have smoked for 3 years, lately only 5 smokes a day

In fact, I am having one right now. Consider it my last.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 



I have always been under the impression that that is because of the preservents used in our food !?



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Threadfall

However, I'm stumped to think how American cigarettes could just happen to contain toxins in such significantly higher quantities than those offered overseas and other countries..............................

But why they hell are American cigs so much worse...


Based on the movie that exposed the tobacco industry, there is one possible reason not pointed out previously.

American Tobacco is washed with ammonia, to produce "free base nicotine". This gives smokers an instant nicotine high, instead of a delayed effect. Also it creates a product that is much more addictive. Call it "Crack Tobacco" if you like, because of the analogy to crack coc aine (free base).


[edit on 6-6-2010 by zzombie]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 12:35 AM
link   
This is why I have my little vices shipped from Europe.

Plus they are way cheaper and get here in about 10-12 days.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 01:17 AM
link   
I started smoking when I was 9 yrs old. Stealing my parents Kools. I worked my way up to a pack a day in no time, and in my 30's that jacked up to 2 pks or more a day. No cough, no problems, I'm thinking the surgeon general is full of bs.

I am almost 50 now, I was diagnosed with copd last year, and on treatment, I started taking Chantix and cut down to around 6 a day, some days I didn't smoke at all. My doctor was pleased, and made the statement that 'officially' smoking under 10 cigs a day is no longer considered addictive, or a health risk. I was stunned.

I went on a short trip, left the Chantix at home by accident, and 3 days into the trip I was right back up to 20 a day. I haven't taken the Chantix since getting home, and am still smoking a pack a day. Waiting to go back to the doctor and get started on it again, I want to quit, but cigarettes won't let me. I hate them, I hate the smell, the ashtray, the cost, and what they are doing to me, but they are soooooo addictive, I cannot control myself. Crack indeed.

But I was smoking a brand out of Columbia not the US, they can't sell them here anymore as of a month ago, because they didn't pay for the extra tax on cigs. Now I am smoking Marlboro, they are strong, but not as strong as those Colombian cigs.

I have to say too that this experiment was done on the butts of the cigs people smoked, and people don't all smoke the same. Some people pull on them more, and more often which would heat them up more, pulling more through it. I am not so sure this method could possibly have any accuracy.

Anywho, if you smoke, quit or try to quit. They are all bad for you no matter where they come from. I watched my mother suffer 3 years and then die of lung cancer, it isn't pretty. It should have been my lesson, but the addictive nature of cigs won't let me go just yet.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 05:43 AM
link   
Its ok folks - its all just anti-smoking propaganda

First you need to know just a little bit about tobacco.

The purpose of stripping nicotene out of tobacco and then putting it back in a measured amount was at the request of government and anti-smoking crusaders. They believed that reducing the amount of nicotene would make the cigarettes "less addictive".

Of course this theory was based on the principal that nicotene was addictive. Many many scientists dispute this theory but the government and anti-smokers insisted that the tobacco companies do it anyway.

What needs to be understood is that it is not the constituents of tobacco that are toxic - it is the byproducts of combustion that contain trace amounts of toxic elements. So reducing nicotene did NOTHING to make cigarettes less addictive and caused smokers to smoker more in order to achieve the same nicotene "hit" thus exposing smokers to MORE smoke then they would have ordinarily smoked!

Can we say "increased profits and increased taxes" boys and girls?

Then the government and anti-smokers decided that it was the tar created when tobacco is burned that was causing all the damages and required tobacco companies to reduce the amount of tar. Light cigarettes were created in response this demand.

Again - same effect. the nicotene is in the tar. Smokers simply inhaled deeper and harder to get the same hit of nicotene. So reducing tar did NOTHING to make cigarettes safer and caused smokers to smoker more in order to achieve the same nicotene "hit" thus exposing smokers to MORE smoke then they would have ordinarily smoked!

Can we say "increased profits and increased taxes" boys and girls?

So the government and anti-smokers decided to sue the tobacco companies for "misleading" the public. Can we say even more profits for the government and anti-smokers.

NOW anti-smokers are saying that lower levels of nitrosamines would produce a "safer" cigarette. NO PROBLEM - using a flue-cured tobacco would reduce nitrosamines. However, flue-cured tobacco creates higher levels of benzo (a) pyrenes, another carcinogen.

Can we see where this is going? Another lawsuit with the tobacco companies accused of "misleading" the public - yet more profit and taxes to the government and anti-smoking.

tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com...


BTW - Canadian cigarettes contain absolutely no additives by law and are made of 100 % flu-cured tobacco and have been for about 15 years now.

There can't be a "safer" cigarette because smoking is generally safe - think very very carefully here. We have a substance that is so safe that the user can inhale it directly into the lungs daily for more than 5 decades and in their old age get the exact same diseases that never-smokers get at the same age that those disease show up in never-smokers. The evidence is clear that the toxicity of smoking is very very low indeed!

The only evidence that smoking CAUSES any disease is provided by epidimiology - better known as statistics. And we all know what statistics are worth.

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 05:54 AM
link   
Reply to Zombie:

The idea that tobacco companies created Crack-tobacco is utterly ridiculous and an anti-smoking fabrication.

Tobacco used in cigars and pipes has a higher pH than tobacco used in cigarettes. This allows the nicotene to be absorbed in the lining of the mouth because cigar and pipe smoke is not inhaled into the lungs. A cigar smoker draws the smoke into his mouth, holds it for a second or two and blows it out of his mouth.

Cigarettes have a different type of tobacco with a lower pH. The ammonia changes the pH and allows the smoker to draw the smoke into his lungs where the nicotene is absorbed. Changing the pH makes the smoke less irritating.

www.sourcewatch.org...

This is just a fact of making a good cigar or cigarette and what you have quoted is the anti-smokers "spin" on the intentions of the tobacco companies.

Adjusting pH makes a "smoother and less irritating" and more pleasurable smoking experience for smokers.

As for nicotene being addictive - here is one link questioning that theory

www.marijuanalibrary.org...

In 1986, C. Evert Koop, US surgeon general changed the medical definition of addictive so that nicotene could be classed as an addictive drug. Unfortunately, the definition of addictive is now broad as to be meaningless and and any activity which provides pleasure to human beings (including sex) is considered addictive.

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 02:19 AM
link   
Population control, who are the ciggarettes targeted to what audience?
Notice that the american cig ads portray a country man.
And someone who is proud about there country maybe seen as a sheep, but they believe in freedom and culture.

But not just working class smoke, there is people who are in poverity that buy a pack of cigs at there local gas station, I seen bums smoke.

Great way to kill humans have them smoke poison laced tobbaco.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 02:32 AM
link   
I have smokes a popular brand of roll your own tobacco for 5 years now. if I smoke a Marlboro I can instantly feel the chemicals start to effect me.

It has been known for years the Big Boys add lots of chemicals to the tobacco to help get you addicted and to have a certain flavor.

See folks.. smoking is bad enough and yes, it is possible for it to cause cancer, but the additives which are also toxic chemicals is a double whammy.

Better off if you must smoke getting organic tobacco.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
I have smokes a popular brand of roll your own tobacco for 5 years now. if I smoke a Marlboro I can instantly feel the chemicals start to effect me.

It has been known for years the Big Boys add lots of chemicals to the tobacco to help get you addicted and to have a certain flavor.

See folks.. smoking is bad enough and yes, it is possible for it to cause cancer, but the additives which are also toxic chemicals is a double whammy.

Better off if you must smoke getting organic tobacco.


You know how I KNOW smoking is addicting? Because I continue to do it and I don't even like it!



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   
I just called up one of the US-based tobacco companies and asked them a very simple question. I wanted to know how much tar and nicotine was in each cigarette from one of their brands. How many mg of each are in this particular cigarette?

The rep told me that the FTC does not require this type of testing to be done any more because it is unreliable, therefore, they don't have that information. I countered by saying, "Ok, so your company manufactures these cigarettes, and you don't know exactly how much tar & nicotine you are putting in them?" She responded by saying, "No, we don't know".

How bout them apples?



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   
absolutely crazy! i think everyone knows (even smokers) that cigs can (not do) cause cancer, I don't know if American brands are worse than european brands but either way you run the risk if you want to smoke.
I started when I was 13 (I'm now 31) and smoked about a pack a day,cig of choice? marlboro red or camels nice . After the birth of my daughter I tried to give up and so did my wife guess what it didnt work! soon enough back to a pack a day but realised what with have a smoke,have a mint, wash my hands then go to my baby I realised that i fu@£%ng stunk of smoke! now my next child is on the way I haven't had a smoke in one month and don't miss them....
... the solution? AND THIS IS NOT A PLUG, (buy it on ebay, download it as an ebook doesn't matter how you get it but if you want to stop at least check it out) it is called the easy way to stop smoking by allen carr ( i know) it has worked for me and my wife so it should for you!
i say again i'm not spamming or plugging this book,I just want to help because patches etc all have nicotine and continue to feed the habit this way doesn't.
just remember,there are NO withdrawal symptoms to stopping! Really , how many time a night do you wake up for a smoke? you don't because there are no cravings to wake you!



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join