Talk:Cigarette

Hello, let's add a Cigarette health facts on the principal page??

Hello there, IMHO there might be added a cigarette health risks in the principal page, such as inhaling bad smoke, passive smoking and other facts, such as nausea of brutal use of cigarette due to the components. More to come, as citations and trully reliable fonts can be achieved, and I propose to look for, if this idea is accepeted my dear peers. --BlackPatrol (talk) 13:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think that the line about health dangers that exists on the article right now now should be removed.

One single sentence would do: "For the possible health effects of smoking cigarettes see: "Health effects of tobacco smoking"(Link)

I love Wikipedia for its neutrality, this is a page about Cigarettes, not another place to put health dangers to pound into your head. Or to promote an opinion such as dangers of secondhand smoke.

I think there is a fact in the second paragraph that reflects a bias, questionable research, and should be removed

In the second paragraph, the article says that a cigarette smoked, on average, reduces 11 minutes off of a person's life. The cited material is a pamphlet on quitting smoking. That kind of information is, aside from being completely in-empirical, reflective of a clear bias of the author: He or she feels that the reader should not smoke cigarettes (And as a non-smoker, I totally agree).

Cigarettes are unhealthy, yes; This is a well-known and well-documented fact. However, to make a claim such as "Smoking one cigarette will take 11 minutes off your life" is a fact loaded with terminology to steer the reader into not smoking.

I would expect better quality information on an article as touchy as cigarettes. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to contact me.

Who ever has the authority to, please remove that statement from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.116 (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Also, even if it was absolutely unquestionable that it takes 11 minutes off your life, these kinds of statistics probably don't belong in the lead. It'd be like putting "Automobile accidents kill 1 in 60 Americans and are the leading cause of death for people under 30" in the lead of the automobile article. KenFehling (talk) 13:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

If nothing else, perhaps the statement should be amended to something along the lines of "A pack a day smoker who smokes for 50 years can expect to take about 11 minutes off his life with each cigarette" DumberDrummer (talk) 08:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There is still no research to back up such a claim. POV, whether from pro- or anti-smoking camps, must be avoided. Mcools (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.255.133 (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

recent studies have indicated that beef is in cigarettes

YES ITS TRUE I think you mean beef flavor. Am I right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.253.31 (talk) 04:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Separating Light Cigarettes Explanation

There is a paragraph inside the "Manufacturing" section explaining how light cigarettes are made (and thus their difference from regular cigarettes). This is extremely important information and I propose that it be separated into its own heading. Bigmantonyd (talk) 09:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

List of cigarette brands with recent Tar, Nicotine and Carbon Monoxide content.

Tar, Nicotine and Carbon monoxide content are displayed on the side of cigarette packets (at least they are here in The Netherlands...).

It would be nice to put a link on this page that brings you to a table where these values are compared by brand.

I've been searching on the net for a list comparing these values between brands of cigarette and been able find only one dating back to 1994. Since 2004 limits have been set for the maximum allowed content of tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide so we are really missing this information.

Example:

Brand	Tar (mg)	Nicotine (mg)	Carbon Monoxide (mg)
Marlboro Gold (EU), Marlboro Lights	8	0,6	9
Lucky Strike Madura Silver	7	0,6	8

My name's Andy 08:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• I had a book years ago that contained exactly such a list (this one). As I recall, the list was something like five or six pages long due to the large number of different brands and types of cigarettes on the market. Unfortunately, the book was from 1987, and it sounds like you want more recent info. I've never seen anything like that on the Web, but I wouldn't be surprised if such existed somewhere. Good luck! Heather 22:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I found / this on Erowid.org Maisma gardens (talk)

The list on erowid.org is impressive but never up to date because tobacco manufacturers regularly change their products. And at least some brands produce different products for different markets in seemingly identical packages, either because of local taste or because of local regulations.Maggy Rond (talk) 09:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

getting high off of cigarettes?

you can get a slight dizziness known as getting high if you inhale enough cigarettes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.79.196 (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

this occurs when you smoke your first cigarette. It's actually a rather unpleasant feeling; light-headedness, accompanied by nausea, sweating, and a general feeling like you're about to die. (speaking from experience) Nemilar (talk) 03:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a sign of a mild nicotine poisoning, often seen in first time smokers. Their bodies are much more vulnerable to the negative effects of nicotine than regular smokers. Too bad they hardly ever see this as a warning sign... The human body is capable of building a surprisingly high resistance against nicotine poisoning, regular smokers can actually enjoy doses of nicotine that would be lethal to a non-smoker. The human body is actually quite good at getting rid of nicotine, causing smokers to "need a fix" quite often compared to other substances. As far as I know there are no known cases of lethal nicotine poisoning by cigarette smoke, most lethal cases are caused by either swallowing tobacco or by abuse of nicotine as pest control.Maggy Rond (talk) 09:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Many people have died while smoking ridiculous numbers of cigarettes simultaneously, typically on a dare or trying to win a bet. I don't know if the nicotine specifically is to blame, however. <eleland/talkedits> 00:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

So I guess we were getting pretty bad advice from those old TV shows where fathers catch their sons smoking and make them smoke a whole pack in a sitting to make them sick. KenFehling (talk) 04:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In the UK this dizziness is refered to as a "head rush"--77.98.129.8 (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It's called tolerance. Yes you do get high of cigarettes, but after a while of continuous usage, you start to build tolerance to nicotine, which is when the effects become less pronounced and you merely smoke to prevent nicotine-withdrawal rather than to get high: A similar story to heroin/opium smoking or alcohol usage considering tolerance, but nicotine is more addictive than the aforementioned, though with less serious withdrawal symptoms. Nicotine is often likened to Crack smoking in regards to its addictiveness and the users likelihood to try again. In terms of tolerance, nicotine has the fastest tolerance onset than any other drug such as alcohol or opioids which require months or years of use to mimic a tolerance replicated by 2 weeks usage of nicotine. So yes, the human body is pretty good at building a tolerance towards nicotine. --78.86.159.199 (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, nicotine is the fastest acting drug, hitting the brain in less than 8 seconds. Also nicotine is highly toxic, and the amount from a single ciggy taken intravenously would be lethal. According to Allen Carr anyway. Eugene-elgato (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

yeah man, its like pot

Butts

This anecdotal -- and wholly unprovable -- paragraph about litter is worthless biased trivia (yeah, there's sources but so what, it's still anecdotal, and it's is still totally unprovable). Even if true. It doesn't belong here. It's a function of litter not of the butts themselves, nor the act of smoking. It's just Wikiality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.129.162 (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I would argue that it's a by-product of smoking. Except for places with butt-dispensers, there aren't many options when it comes to disposing of cigarette butts. Sure, you can extinguish them and find a trash to throw them in (because, if you don't completely put them out, you're risking starting a fire); so it's much easier (and hence, much more common) just to toss the butt aside. While I agree that it might not be provable that cigarette butts are the most littered item in the world, I'd say it's probably true. Might not qualify for wikiality, since I don't know that there are any sources around to back up the claim, but I think it certainly belongs in the article, even if the language is toned down a bit. --Nemilar (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It may be relevant, but it badly needs rewritten. 89.242.220.122 (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say that they were probably, on balance the most littered item in the world on number. Some items may be higher in weignt, but thats just splitting hairs isnt it. It is important because as the litter is so prevalent; it is a major part of the cigarette as a subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.121.60 (talk) 02:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You can eat cigarette butts without dying

dangers....

I think we should make a section that tells the dangers of smoking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.98.253 (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That's already been covered. --Goldfndr (talk) 06:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, isn't this article already littered with warnings? Frotz (talk) 07:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The dangers of smoking have nothing to do in this article. They aren't specific to cigarettes - cigars, cigarillos and snuff are also highly dangerous. See Health effects of tobacco smoking. Canjth (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I don't see any explicit mention linking to the page about adverse effects of smoking tobacco. I am severely shocked that there isn't a section on it. Yes, cigarettes are a category of tobacco products, but doesn't mean it should be left out. --205.153.101.8 (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Well, it is mentioned in the first section of the article I guess. I was just expecting its own section. --205.153.101.8 (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

spelling error

smoulder does not have a u in it. its spelt smolder.

N.B. Smolder is an American illiteracy.

Connecticut's postal abbreviation is "CT" not "CN."

The OED says It does have a 'U'.(Morcus (talk) 12:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC))

Grammar

In subsection "Paper", the second to last sentence is a grammatical atrocity. Better keep the page locked so no one can fix it. - Anonymous IP Address 15:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Smoking rates table

In the table of smoking rates by country, for the United States it shows 35% of men smoke, and 22 percent of women smoke. However, this doesn't seem to match the table of smoking rates for each US state. Assuming there are roughly as many men as women in the US, we can estimate the smoking rate at 28%, however, only 1 state (Kentucky) has a smoking rate that high. Perhaps one table is looking at whole populations, and the other is only looking at adults?--RLent (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The History section.

The section could do with rewriting because it isn't chronological. The Crimean war is mentioned then we jump back to 1830. (Morcus (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC))

I agree this is a very confusing section with no logical line of events. And these events, although possibly related to the "inventions" of pre-packed rolling tobacco with the needed cigarette papers and ready rolled cigarettes, say nothing about how the industrial production of these products actually started.Maggy Rond (talk) 09:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

List of known ingredients?

A list of known ingredients and byproducts besides filter, paper, tobacco, and flavoring might be good, as well as what purpose they serve. For example, why do cigarettes allegedly contain formaldehyde? Wycked (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The first footnote directs to a PDF from the WHO with clear explanations as well as most kinds of known ingredients. Several tobacco manufacturers have ingredient lists on their website (but never complete as explained in the WHO document). Formaldehyde might possibly be used to prevent mold in stored tobacco. If so than most of it will be evaporated during the manufacturing process, it has a boiling point of 19.3 °C. It is highly flammable so even if there would be any residue it would burn up before entering the smokers body. On the other hand it is an intermediate of burning organic matter as well as a by-product of your own metabolic system. Is it important? We all know that cigarette smoke is very harmful. The tobacco industry is of course responsible for taking on average several years off a smokers life expectancy. But it would be an extremely strange marketing strategy to deliberately add toxic components that would shorten their customers lives.Maggy Rond (talk) 10:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Many of the things on ingredient lists can be very misleading, and is often worded to be malicious to the tobacco manufacturer. Amounts are extremely important, 1 billion PPM formaldehyde wouldn't kill a gnat but it can still be listed.

and no, Maggy, it is the smokers responsibility for taking years off his/her own life a human is free to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm others. (at least in America) (don't mention secondhand smoke, there is obfuscation in EVERY study performed, "consensus" is not SCIENCE) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.21.10 (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Consumption

"Approximately 5.5 trillion cigarettes are produced globally each year and are smoked by over 1.1 billion people or greater then one-sixth of the world population. "

Where's the source for this? My dad did some analysis for British American Tobacco, during his employment there, and I think the real figure could be quite far off from this.

Also, is there a reliable source of governement stats on nicotine ratings for the different UK brands? ( I mean 'relible' :)Moneyprobs (talk) 09:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean "reliable":) It really depends what you're specifically looking for. Google's really your friend [1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.206.16 (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Cigarette lengths

Why has no-one added a section on the varying lengths of cigarettes, eg king, and navy cut? 76.251.233.37 (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want such a section added to the article, be bold and create it yourself. Canjth (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

manufactured out of cured and finely cut

I think that the word "finely" in the opening puts cigarettes into too much of a positive light, we should change it to "shredded" or "processed by machinery" or something. Also "manufactured" could be changed to "mass produced" as mass production has more of a negative connotation to it and "tobacco leaves" should definitely be changed to just "tobacco" as "leaves" suggests that it is a natural product from the earth. JayKeaton (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I am as anti-smoking as you, but the thing is that Wikipedia articles must be written in a neutral point of view, and I think the current wording is okay as it doesn't really promote cigarette use. Canjth (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

just to inform you guys,Denmark have chanced to rules for byeing and smoking cigarettes,it´s moved to 18. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.81.250 (talk) 23:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

yeah, isn't wiki supposed to be neutral? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.228.162 (talk) 20:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, it is meant to be neutral, it isn't meant to glamorize smoking by using words like "finely" or "tobacco leaves", we should be saying "harsh chemicals" instead of "tobacco leaves" because that is exactly what tobacco is, a chemical that has a harsh reaction to humans. JayKeaton (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

"Finely" in this case is referring to the texture and width of cut for the tobacco used. As for trying to shift the wording just for the sake of making it sound negative, that's just silly. Just because one is not putting tobacco in a "bad" light does not mean that they are trying to glamorize it. Sjschen (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

minor edits

During a light reading of this page I noticed that there are a number of minor edits that could be made. This probably falls near the bottom of the Wikipedia priority list but if any moderators (?) are watching this page and have a few minutes it'd credit Wikipedia to have them squared away. I skimmed this talk page and there seems to be a few topics on specific minor issues. [[fltchr]] (talk) 06:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

filter print

A non-smoking friend asked me why the filter paper looks like it does on a typical cigarette. This is the first placed I looked, nothing. I'll continue searching myself but if anyone else knows please illuminate. Its something that we don't think about but occurs with great consistency. [[fltchr]] (talk) 06:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Health warnings on UK tobacco products

I can confirm they now appear, don't really have a source, but someone should check this out.

---

As a UK resident, I can confirm that graphic and textual warnings have started appearing. The roll out date was 1st October; graphic and textual warnings (as opposed to the black and white text box warnings) started appearing in large numbers in early to mid November. Reference: BBC news website —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.101.225 (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Taxation

The bit on taxation in the UK is not substantiated. It needs bulking out to explain boarder trade and diminishing returns (and links to these articles) and badly needs a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.121.60 (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I smoke Marlboro 100s

How come on the last 2 cartons I bought at different stores in Irving Texas 75060,that the cigarette keeps going out or the fire burns out the side and falls off when least expected? This is becoming a problem and may cause a fire. Thank You William Murphy Please respond to. Email wiliam@verizon.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.25.178 (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

lead material deleted

Deleted the passage below; while the impulse to provide anti-smoking info is admirable, the health effects belong more properly in tobacco or tobacco smoking and the NY gov flyer is not WP:RS -- it doesn't contain scholarly citations to anchor what are really slash-&-burn statistics. DavidOaks (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Nicotine, the primary psychoactive chemical in tobacco, is addictive. Cigarette use by pregnant women has also been shown to cause birth defects (which include mental and physical disability). On average, each cigarette smoked shortens lifespan by 11 minutes and smokers who die of tobacco-related disease lose, on average, 14 years of life.

Ammonium additives

How can this article not contain any mention of the history of adding ammonium compounds to cigarettes to increase nicotine availability? The fact of this is well-established by the internal tobacco company documents that were released during the discovery process in the American law-suits against these companies. Here is a resource that I would recommend using in an addition to the section that discusses "Tobacco Blend". http://old.ash.org.uk/html/regulation/html/additives.html C4VC3 (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)