Talk:Cigarette

Outdated UK cigarette price

BOGERS Cigarettes in the UK are no longer £5-£6. Mayfair and Windsor Blue cigarettes are tied as the cheapest cigarettes in the UK varying from £5.10-£5.40 a pack, Lucky Strike, Benson and Hedges, Marlboro and Vogue are currently the most expensive cigarettes on sale in the UK, all ranging from £6.50-£6.80.

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 a.s dangers of secondhand smoke.

Neutrality is about how the article reflects reliable sources about the subject. Are you seriously claiming that, on aggregate reliable sources don't claim that cigarettes shorten life, but only discuss that when talking about tobacco?- Wolfkeeper 15:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

Agree. Need proof, not an opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.40.229 (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, am removing it. - The Sando (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Not agreed, reinserted. This is a referenced, verifiable fact. The wikipedia is based on referenced material, and this is referenced.- Wolfkeeper 04:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The closet citation provided to the disputed content is in french, so can you provide an english source in addition? Also, a link to an actual medical study would be needed to say that it "takes off 11 minutes," where as statistical evidence of this would only show that "for smokers the average life expectancy is lower by a factor of ___ (which is equivalent to 11 minutes per cigarette)." To use such loaded and scientifically unsound phrases only detracts from the reputability of wikipedia. That aside, the issue of neutrality is still valid so it should remain removed unless you can provide an arguement showing its relevance and necessity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.233.50.209 (talk) 11:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have to provide English sources in the English Wikipedia at all; and that cigarettes kill people is entirely neutral and notable for this product. Don't make me laugh with your ridiculous claims that it isn't central to the issues that surround the product.- Wolfkeeper 06:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Ehhh... That really ISN'T true. It's a misleading speculation at best, from anecdotal "evidence". In a scientific study of any importance (other than ideological), that information would not be used and discarded if presented. As I see more things like this, I understand why our university banned Wikipedia as a potential source for research. Not because Wikipedia is "bad", but because certain people and groups dominate articles and toss in bad information to advance their opinions.

How is this verifiable? How are you going to apply the scientific method to this, experiment, create the theory and submit it for peer review? Did they take some people and observe them smoking in a lab for 50 years until they died, and then decided they died (Delta * X) faster than the "control"? No, and I will have the laugh if anyone claims that. Basing it off of a survey pattern and individual research is inevitably doomed to failure. You can choose which "cases" go into the statistics and advance your ideology and opinions. That's exactly what has been done by the anti-smoking camp and lobbyists. You get the same results with anything controversial. Yes, smoking is unhealthy and can cause a whole myriad of health problems and, of course, death. But there's no benefit to adding such anecdotal snippets of pseudo-science.

I also agree with the idea that being bombarded with the health detriments of smoking as soon as you start reading is silly. Very good analogy too, KenFehling. We may as well toss in some attacks against the bourgeoisie Tobacco company CEOs and tell everyone about their Capitalist conspiracy too, no? A bit of dry humor, but I hope you get my point. At least create a dedicated section about the risks to health, and keep all of it there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.163.32 (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The statement, as is, presupposes that there is a predetermined lifespan for each person. As is, it implies that anyone who dies would have died instantly had they smoked a cigarrette 11 minutes before they actually died. It should say "life expectancy", both in the source and in the article. Actually, the sentence should be removed from the article because it's clearly misleading. It's not an opinion, but an inaccurate way to represent a conclusion about life expectancy, which is not the same as life span, or "life", as the source says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.249.49 (talk) 03:28, 12 July 2010 (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)

There are some, but not many documented cases. Smoking lots of cigarettes simultaneously causes the inhaled smoke to be dangerously hot, the smoke contains more CO because of incomplete burning and too much of too many other toxic ingredients of the smoke all combined indeed can cause sudden death. But so can eating too many eggs or hamburgers. Maggy Rond (talk) 09:33, 19 April 2009 (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)

This is rediculous. The lethal dose for a human being who never smoked is 0.5-1.0 mg/kg body weight. Do the math and let Allen Carr do his. Maggy Rond (talk) 09:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

yeah man, its like pot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.80.40.191 (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

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

I agree. 4.7 trillion butts become litter every year? With 6 billion people on the planet, that just doesn't make sense; smokers would have to be discarding every single butt they smoke as litter! BogWhomper (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

They are specific to cigarettes. Specifically if you smoke them your average lifespan is shorter by 11 minutes; that number varies with other tobacoo products.- Wolfkeeper 01:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The "11 minute" part of your statement....do you have a source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.154.254 (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2011 (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)

It needs its own section as well.- Wolfkeeper 01:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Surely putting a section about the dangers of tobacco use into a page about a specific tobacco product is like putting a section on the dangers of automobiles into a page about - for example - camper vans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.9.126.236 (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2010 (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)

Yes, smokers are free to take years off their own lives. I'm a smoker and well aware of the possible consequences. I've never written anything about second hand smoke anywhere ever. There is no "consensus" about the effect. Please sign your contributions. Maggy Rond (talk) 09:50, 19 April 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

The regular length of a King size cigarette is 84mm Example, regular Benson&Hedges, Marlboro, Indian Gold Flake King size etc.

In India there is another mid sized cigarette of ITC brand by the name Wills navy cut which is only 74mm.

The famous Indian BIDI measure around 60mm. There are some cigarette known as just filter cigarettes whose length is 69mm.

A cigarette without a filter (mostly sold in India) also measure 69mm

Other cigarettes that are longer than the normal ones measure about 122-124mm.

Those lengths WERE correct before, however now in Canada the TC's are decreasing the length of the cigarette (seen by me with "Number 7's")with a smaller package and increasing the filter length using the same size package (seen by me with "Dunhill"). Some brands of cigarettes also appear to me to be thinner in diameter than before - perhaps someone can conduct some experiments in this area? All of the above results in even less tobacco for the same or increasing prices, and very angry consumers who feel they are being ripped off (Myself included). I have spoken with pissed off other people who say their brands are undergoing the same rip off process, however I haven't smoked them personally, so.... If anyone would like to address this issue in the main article, that would be great. Thanks! :) 154.5.109.167 (talk) 18:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Chew sticks

Chew sticks and teeth cleaning twig (which may be chewed all day to clean teeth) can be mentioned as replacements for cigarettes. See http://www.stopsmokingfree.org/blog/quit-smoking-cigarette/how-can-i-quit-smoking-cigarettes-for-real-this-time

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) I'd Also like to point out that the 12th source in the cited work section is no longer there. I couldn't figure out how to fix that but I did want to report it. Thank you. Toasternkiwis (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)toasternkiwis

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)

Before the attached filters of fiber material there were glass tubes with silica gel that could be fitted as a mouth piece onto a cigarette. After two or three puffs they got brown and looked almost like the the current most common print on the attached filters. But I have to admitt that this is a personal guess. Maggy Rond (talk) 09:56, 19 April 2009 (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)

The "Every 10 percent increase in the price of cigarettes reduced youth smoking by about seven percent and overall cigarette consumption by about four percent" citation from anti-smoking website is unrealable and too biased of a view.

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.

Reverted with extreme prejudice. That's reprehensible behaviour, even if you disagree with one reference, it gives you absolutely no right to remove all of the other sentences as well. And it's considered a reliable source anyway.- Wolfkeeper 01:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

Why all the extra ingredients?

I personally am a non-smoker. Can't breathe around the smoke. Not making fun of anyone who smokes, just thinks it smells really bad and wonder why people like to inhale something that smells like that.

Also, why in the world are all those ingredients, some of which just have to be poisonous to some degree, included?

Why can't a cigarette just be the tobacco leaf?

67.86.140.4 (talk) 02:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of them are flavourings and there are three reasons why they are there: (1) to maintain consistency of flavour between batches, (2) replacement of flavours reduced through mechanical processing, and (3) easy way of increasing profits. Sjschen (talk) 05:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Page screwed up

The page is royally screwed up but is locked so I can't fix it. Someone should go and fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdistancerunner (talk • contribs) 06:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Types of Cigarette

Should a section of this article not discuss the technical difference between Turkish, American and other general types of cigarette? Mcnuus (talk) 01:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

New Jersey

Can someone please remove New Jersey as a state that raised the minimum age to 19? Their official website says it's still 18. http://www.state.nj.us/health/as/laws.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amn12 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The legal age is indeed 19, has been raised to 19, I have included it as being 19 and supplied the appropriate citation from the state of NJ. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 15:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

List of Additives in cigarettes

•Acetanisole •Acetic Acid •Acetoin •Acetophenone •6-Acetoxydihydrotheaspirane •2-Acetyl-3- Ethylpyrazine •2-Acetyl-5-Methylfuran •Acetylpyrazine •2-Acetylpyridine •3-Acetylpyridine •2-Acetylthiazole •Aconitic Acid •dl-Alanine •Alfalfa Extract •Allspice Extract,Oleoresin, and Oil •Allyl Hexanoate •Allyl Ionone •Almond Bitter Oil •Ambergris Tincture •Ammonia •Ammonium Bicarbonate •Ammonium Hydroxide •Ammonium Phosphate Dibasic •Ammonium Sulfide •Amyl Alcohol •Amyl Butyrate •Amyl Formate •Amyl Octanoate •alpha-Amylcinnamaldehyde •Amyris Oil •trans-Anethole •Angelica Root Extract, Oil and Seed Oil •Anise •Anise Star, Extract and Oils •Anisyl Acetate •Anisyl Alcohol •Anisyl Formate •Anisyl Phenylacetate •Apple Juice Concentrate, Extract, and Skins •Apricot Extract and Juice Concentrate •1-Arginine •Asafetida Fluid Extract And Oil •Ascorbic Acid •1-Asparagine Monohydrate •1-Aspartic Acid •Balsam Peru and Oil •Basil Oil •Bay Leaf, Oil and Sweet Oil •Beeswax White •Beet Juice Concentrate •Benzaldehyde •Benzaldehyde Glyceryl Acetal •Benzoic Acid, Benzoin •Benzoin Resin •Benzophenone •Benzyl Alcohol •Benzyl Benzoate •Benzyl Butyrate •Benzyl Cinnamate •Benzyl Propionate •Benzyl Salicylate •Bergamot Oil •Bisabolene •Black Currant Buds Absolute •Borneol •Bornyl Acetate •Buchu Leaf Oil •1,3-Butanediol •2,3-Butanedione •1-Butanol •2-Butanone •4(2-Butenylidene)-3,5,5-Trimethyl-2-Cyclohexen-1-One •Butter, Butter Esters, and Butter Oil •Butyl Acetate •Butyl Butyrate •Butyl Butyryl Lactate •Butyl Isovalerate •Butyl Phenylacetate •Butyl Undecylenate

---

---

---

•3-Butylidenephthalide •Butyric Acid] •Cadinene •Caffeine •Calcium Carbonate •Camphene •Cananga Oil •Capsicum Oleoresin •Caramel Color •Caraway Oil •Carbon Dioxide •Cardamom Oleoresin, Extract, Seed Oil, and Powder •Carob Bean and Extract •beta-Carotene •Carrot Oil •Carvacrol •4-Carvomenthenol •1-Carvone •beta-Caryophyllene •beta-Caryophyllene Oxide •Cascarilla Oil and Bark Extract •Cassia Bark Oil •Cassie Absolute and Oil •Castoreum Extract, Tincture and Absolute •Cedar Leaf Oil •Cedarwood Oil Terpenes and Virginiana •Cedrol •Celery Seed Extract, Solid, Oil, And Oleoresin •Cellulose Fiber •Chamomile Flower Oil And Extract •Chicory Extract •Chocolate •Cinnamaldehyde •Cinnamic Acid •Cinnamon Leaf Oil, Bark Oil, and Extract •Cinnamyl Acetate •Cinnamyl Alcohol •Cinnamyl Cinnamate •Cinnamyl Isovalerate •Cinnamyl Propionate •Citral •Citric Acid •Citronella Oil •dl-Citronellol •Citronellyl Butyrate •itronellyl Isobutyrate •Civet Absolute •Clary Oil •Clover Tops, Red Solid Extract •Cocoa •Cocoa Shells, Extract, Distillate And Powder •Coconut Oil •Coffee •Cognac White and Green Oil •Copaiba Oil •Coriander Extract and Oil •Corn Oil •Corn Silk •Costus Root Oil •Cubeb Oil •Cuminaldehyde •para-Cymene •1-Cysteine •Dandelion Root Solid Extract •Davana Oil •2-trans, 4-trans-Decadienal •delta-Decalactone •gamma-Decalactone •Decanal •Decanoic Acid •1-Decanol •2-Decenal •Dehydromenthofurolactone •Diethyl Malonate •Diethyl Sebacate •2,3-Diethylpyrazine •Dihydro Anethole •5,7-Dihydro-2-Methylthieno(3,4-D) Pyrimidine •Dill Seed Oil and Extract •meta-Dimethoxybenzene •para-Dimethoxybenzene •2,6-Dimethoxyphenol •Dimethyl Succinate •3,4-Dimethyl-1,2 Cyclopentanedione •3,5- Dimethyl-1,2-Cyclopentanedione •3,7-Dimethyl-1,3,6-Octatriene •4,5-Dimethyl-3-Hydroxy-2,5-Dihydrofuran-2-One •6,10-Dimethyl-5,9-Undecadien-2-One •3,7-Dimethyl-6-Octenoic Acid •2,4 Dimethylacetophenone •alpha,para-Dimethylbenzyl Alcohol •alpha,alpha-Dimethylphenethyl Acetate •alpha,alpha Dimethylphenethyl Butyrate •2,3-Dimethylpyrazine •2,5-Dimethylpyrazine •2,6-Dimethylpyrazine •Dimethyltetrahydrobenzofuranone •delta-Dodecalactone •gamma-Dodecalactone •para-Ethoxybenzaldehyde •Ethyl 10-Undecenoate •Ethyl 2-Methylbutyrate •Ethyl Acetate •Ethyl Acetoacetate •Ethyl Alcohol •Ethyl Benzoate •Ethyl Butyrate •Ethyl Cinnamate •Ethyl Decanoate •Ethyl Fenchol •Ethyl Furoate •Ethyl Heptanoate •Ethyl Hexanoate •Ethyl Isovalerate •Ethyl Lactate •Ethyl Laurate •Ethyl Levulinate •Ethyl Maltol •Ethyl Methyl Phenylglycidate •Ethyl Myristate •Ethyl Nonanoate •Ethyl Octadecanoate •Ethyl Octanoate •Ethyl Oleate •Ethyl Palmitate •Ethyl Phenylacetate •Ethyl Propionate •Ethyl Salicylate •Ethyl trans-2-Butenoate •Ethyl Valerate •Ethyl Vanillin •2-Ethyl (or Methyl)-(3,5 and 6)-Methoxypyrazine •2-Ethyl-1-Hexanol, 3-Ethyl -2 -Hydroxy-2-Cyclopenten-1-One •2-Ethyl-3, (5 or 6)-Dimethylpyrazine •5-Ethyl-3-Hydroxy-4-Methyl-2(5H)-Furanone •2-Ethyl-3-Methylpyrazine •4-Ethylbenzaldehyde •4-Ethylguaiacol •para-Ethylphenol •3-Ethylpyridine •Eucalyptol •Farnesol •D-Fenchone •Fennel Sweet Oil •Fenugreek, Extract, Resin, and Absolute •Fig Juice Concentrate •Food Starch Modified •Furfuryl Mercaptan •4-(2-Furyl)-3-Buten-2-One •Galbanum Oil •Genet Absolute •Gentian Root Extract •Geraniol •Geranium Rose Oil •Geranyl Acetate •Geranyl Butyrate •Geranyl Formate •Geranyl Isovalerate •Geranyl Phenylacetate •Ginger Oil and Oleoresin •1-Glutamic Acid •1-Glutamine •Glycerol •Glycyrrhizin Ammoniated •Grape Juice Concentrate •Guaiac Wood Oil •Guaiacol •Guar Gum •2,4-Heptadienal •gamma-Heptalactone •Heptanoic Acid •2-Heptanone •3-Hepten-2-One •2-Hepten-4-One •4-Heptenal •trans -2-Heptenal •Heptyl Acetate •omega-6-Hexadecenlactone •gamma-Hexalactone •Hexanal •Hexanoic Acid •2-Hexen-1-Ol •3-Hexen-1-Ol •cis-3-Hexen-1-Yl Acetate •2-Hexenal •3-Hexenoic Acid •trans-2-Hexenoic Acid •cis-3-Hexenyl Formate •Hexyl 2-Methylbutyrate •Hexyl Acetate •Hexyl Alcohol •Hexyl Phenylacetate •1-Histidine •Honey •Hops Oil •Hydrolyzed Milk Solids •Hydrolyzed Plant Proteins •5-Hydroxy-2,4-Decadienoic Acid delta- Lactone •4-Hydroxy-2,5-Dimethyl-3(2H)-Furanone •2-Hydroxy-3,5,5-Trimethyl-2-Cyclohexen-1-One •4-Hydroxy -3-Pentenoic Acid Lactone •2-Hydroxy-4-Methylbenzaldehyde •4-Hydroxybutanoic Acid Lactone •Hydroxycitronellal •6-Hydroxydihydrotheaspirane •4-(para-Hydroxyphenyl)-2-Butanone •Hyssop Oil •Immortelle Absolute and Extract •alpha-Ionone •beta-Ionone •alpha-Irone •Isoamyl Acetate •Isoamyl Benzoate •Isoamyl Butyrate •Isoamyl Cinnamate •Isoamyl Formate, Isoamyl Hexanoate •Isoamyl Isovalerate •Isoamyl Octanoate •Isoamyl Phenylacetate •Isobornyl Acetate •Isobutyl Acetate •Isobutyl Alcohol •Isobutyl Cinnamate •Isobutyl Phenylacetate •Isobutyl Salicylate •2-Isobutyl-3-Methoxypyrazine •alpha-Isobutylphenethyl Alcohol •Isobutyraldehyde •Isobutyric Acid •d,l-Isoleucine •alpha-Isomethylionone •2-Isopropylphenol •Isovaleric Acid •Jasmine Absolute, Concrete and Oil •Kola Nut Extract •Labdanum Absolute and Oleoresin •Lactic Acid •Lauric Acid •Lauric Aldehyde •Lavandin Oil •Lavender Oil •Lemon Oil and Extract •Lemongrass Oil •1-Leucine •Levulinic Acid •Licorice Root, Fluid, Extract and Powder •Lime Oil •Linalool •Linalool Oxide •Linalyl Acetate •Linden Flowers •Lovage Oil And Extract •1-Lysine] •Mace Powder, Extract and Oil •Magnesium Carbonate •Malic Acid •Malt and Malt Extract •Maltodextrin •Maltol •Maltyl Isobutyrate •Mandarin Oil •Maple Syrup and Concentrate •Mate Leaf, Absolute and Oil •para-Mentha-8-Thiol-3-One •Menthol •Menthone •Menthyl Acetate •dl-Methionine •Methoprene •2-Methoxy-4-Methylphenol •2-Methoxy-4-Vinylphenol •para-Methoxybenzaldehyde •1-(para-Methoxyphenyl)-1-Penten-3-One •4-(para-Methoxyphenyl)-2-Butanone •1-(para-Methoxyphenyl)-2-Propanone •Methoxypyrazine •Methyl 2-Furoate •Methyl 2-Octynoate •Methyl 2-Pyrrolyl Ketone •Methyl Anisate •Methyl Anthranilate •Methyl Benzoate •Methyl Cinnamate •Methyl Dihydrojasmonate •Methyl Ester of Rosin, Partially Hydrogenated •Methyl Isovalerate •Methyl Linoleate (48%) •Methyl Linolenate (52%) Mixture •Methyl Naphthyl Ketone •Methyl Nicotinate •Methyl Phenylacetate •Methyl Salicylate •Methyl Sulfide •3-Methyl-1-Cyclopentadecanone •4-Methyl-1-Phenyl-2-Pentanone •5-Methyl-2-Phenyl-2-Hexenal •5-Methyl-2-Thiophenecarboxaldehyde •6-Methyl-3,-5-Heptadien-2-One •2-Methyl-3-(para-Isopropylphenyl) Propionaldehyde •5-Methyl-3-Hexen-2-One •1-Methyl-3Methoxy-4-Isopropylbenzene •4-Methyl-3-Pentene-2-One •2-Methyl-4-Phenylbutyraldehyde •6-Methyl-5-Hepten-2-One •4-Methyl-5-Thiazoleethanol •4-Methyl-5-Vinylthiazole •Methyl-alpha-Ionone •Methyl-trans-2-Butenoic Acid •4-Methylacetophenone •para-Methylanisole •alpha-Methylbenzyl Acetate •alpha-Methylbenzyl Alcohol •2-Methylbutyraldehyde •3-Methylbutyraldehyde •2-Methylbutyric Acid •alpha-Methylcinnamaldehyde •Methylcyclopentenolone •2-Methylheptanoic Acid •2-Methylhexanoic Acid •3-Methylpentanoic Acid •4-Methylpentanoic Acid •2-Methylpyrazine •5-Methylquinoxaline •2-Methyltetrahydrofuran-3-One •(Methylthio)Methylpyrazine (Mixture Of Isomers) •3-Methylthiopropionaldehyde •Methyl 3-Methylthiopropionate •2-Methylvaleric Acid •Mimosa Absolute and Extract •Molasses Extract and Tincture •Mountain Maple Solid Extract •Mullein Flowers •Myristaldehyde •Myristic Acid •Myrrh Oil •beta-Napthyl Ethyl Ether •Nerol •Neroli Bigarde Oil •Nerolidol •Nona-2-trans,6-cis-Dienal •2,6-Nonadien-1-Ol •gamma-Nonalactone •Nonanal •Nonanoic Acid •Nonanone •trans-2-Nonen-1-Ol •2-Nonenal •Nonyl Acetate •Nutmeg Powder and Oil •Oak Chips Extract and Oil •Oak Moss Absolute •9,12-Octadecadienoic Acid (48%) And 9,12,15-Octadecatrienoic Acid (52%) •delta-Octalactone •gamma-Octalactone •Octanal •Octanoic Acid •1-Octanol •2-Octanone •3-Octen-2-One •1-Octen-3-Ol •1-Octen-3-Yl Acetate •2-Octenal •Octyl Isobutyrate •Oleic Acid •Olibanum Oil •Opoponax Oil And Gum •Orange Blossoms Water, Absolute, and Leaf Absolute •Orange Oil and Extract •Origanum Oil •Orris Concrete Oil and Root Extract •Palmarosa Oil •Palmitic Acid •Parsley Seed Oil •Patchouli Oil •omega-Pentadecalactone •2,3-Pentanedione •2-Pentanone •4-Pentenoic Acid •2-Pentylpyridine •Pepper Oil, Black And White •Peppermint Oil •Peruvian (Bois De Rose) Oil •Petitgrain Absolute, Mandarin Oil and Terpeneless Oil •alpha-Phellandrene •2-Phenenthyl Acetate •Phenenthyl Alcohol •Phenethyl Butyrate •Phenethyl Cinnamate •Phenethyl Isobutyrate •Phenethyl Isovalerate •Phenethyl Phenylacetate •Phenethyl Salicylate •1-Phenyl-1-Propanol •3-Phenyl-1-Propanol •2-Phenyl-2-Butenal •4-Phenyl-3-Buten-2-Ol •4-Phenyl-3-Buten-2-One •Phenylacetaldehyde •Phenylacetic Acid •1-Phenylalanine •3-Phenylpropionaldehyde •3-Phenylpropionic Acid •3-Phenylpropyl Acetate •3-Phenylpropyl Cinnamate •2-(3-Phenylpropyl)Tetrahydrofuran •Phosphoric Acid •Pimenta Leaf Oil •Pine Needle Oil, Pine Oil, Scotch •Pineapple Juice Concentrate •alpha-Pinene, beta-Pinene •D-Piperitone •Piperonal •Pipsissewa Leaf Extract •Plum Juice •Potassium Sorbate •1-Proline •Propenylguaethol •Propionic Acid •Propyl Acetate •Propyl para-Hydroxybenzoate •Propylene Glycol •3-Propylidenephthalide •Prune Juice and Concentrate •Pyridine •Pyroligneous Acid And Extract •Pyrrole •Pyruvic Acid •Raisin Juice Concentrate •Rhodinol •Rose Absolute and Oil •Rosemary Oil •Rum •Rum Ether •Rye Extract •Sage, Sage Oil, and Sage Oleoresin •Salicylaldehyde •Sandalwood Oil, Yellow •Sclareolide •Skatole •Smoke Flavor •Snakeroot Oil •Sodium Acetate •Sodium Benzoate •Sodium Bicarbonate •Sodium Carbonate •Sodium Chloride •Sodium Citrate •Sodium Hydroxide •Solanone •Spearmint Oil •Styrax Extract, Gum and Oil •Sucrose Octaacetate •Sugar Alcohols •Sugars •Tagetes Oil •Tannic Acid •Tartaric Acid •Tea Leaf and Absolute •alpha-Terpineol •Terpinolene •Terpinyl Acetate •5,6,7,8-Tetrahydroquinoxaline •1,5,5,9-Tetramethyl-13-Oxatricyclo(8.3.0.0(4,9))Tridecane •2,3,4,5, and 3,4,5,6-Tetramethylethyl-Cyclohexanone •2,3,5,6-Tetramethylpyrazine •Thiamine Hydrochloride •Thiazole •1-Threonine •Thyme Oil, White and Red •Thymol •Tobacco Extracts •Tochopherols (mixed) •Tolu Balsam Gum and Extract •Tolualdehydes •para-Tolyl 3-Methylbutyrate •para-Tolyl Acetaldehyde •para-Tolyl Acetate •para-Tolyl Isobutyrate •para-Tolyl Phenylacetate •Triacetin •2-Tridecanone •2-Tridecenal •Triethyl Citrate •3,5,5-Trimethyl -1-Hexanol •para,alpha,alpha-Trimethylbenzyl Alcohol •4-(2,6,6-Trimethylcyclohex-1-Enyl)But-2-En-4-One •2,6,6-Trimethylcyclohex-2-Ene-1,4-Dione •2,6,6-Trimethylcyclohexa-1,3-Dienyl Methan •4-(2,6,6-Trimethylcyclohexa-1,3-Dienyl)But-2-En-4-One •2,2,6-Trimethylcyclohexanone •2,3,5-Trimethylpyrazine •1-Tyrosine •delta-Undercalactone •gamma-Undecalactone •Undecanal •2-Undecanone, 1 •0-Undecenal •Urea •Valencene •Valeraldehyde •Valerian Root Extract, Oil and Powder •Valeric Acid •gamma-Valerolactone •Valine •Vanilla Extract And Oleoresin •Vanillin •Veratraldehyde •Vetiver Oil •Vinegar •Violet Leaf Absolute •Walnut Hull Extract •Water •Wheat Extract And Flour •Wild Cherry Bark Extract •Wine and Wine Sherry •Xanthan Gum •3,4-Xylenol •Yeast

I think you forgot Tumeric. Carbon Monoxide is a gas, not an additive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.40.229 (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting list, but I wonder how many of these are benign? I don't know what half this stuff is. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 15:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a good example of people using raw information overwhelm and possibly scare people. Smoking is not good for your health but many of the stuff on this list either dissipates quickly or is rather benign.Sjschen (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't pretend you think at all, "Sjschen". Nothing is benign when lit on fire and inhaled. What the list is is a good example of the lengths to which Big Tobacco will go to make larger profits. But then, perhaps you're in the habit of smoking cornsilk soaked in sage oil and anti-freeze from a lead pipe. Yum! HuntClubJoe (talk) 07:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Conflicting information in "Consumption"

First it says "Smoking rates in the United States have dropped by half from 1965 to 2006 falling from 42% to 20.8% of adults." 20.8 percent of adults. The chart below that says, in the US, 33 percent and 22 percent of men and woman, respectively do it. That averages ~27, not 20.8. Which is it? -Winter123 (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Selected Cigarette Brands?

I fully understand why this article needs to have protection with all the anti-smoking gurus, sorry, tobacco control advocates.

But it a list of 'selected' cigarette brands really essential? Does it improve or add a great deal to the article? There is already a category of brands. If a list is necessary, it is my concern that the current list does not represent a world-wide view. In Great Britain, Lambert & Butler is the most popular brand yet this is not mentioned. In New Zealand, Holiday is the favourite yet this is also not mentioned. Thoughts? 80.42.235.167 (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I think what matters in this article in not the brand but how tobacco companies hide from public all the hundreds of chemicals that are cancerous! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.1.42 (talk) 02:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

This list is bogus, and has no place in the article. All cigarette brands are materially the same, and even if they are different, we would never know because the tobacco companies shroud their manufacturing processes in total secrecy. As far as I'm concerned, this is nothing more than blatant advertising, and as such, should be deleted post-haste. HuntClubJoe (talk) 07:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

How to Smoke a Cigarette

I just added a link for "How to Smoke a Cigarette" from wikiHow. I feel that within the nonbiased aspects of an encyclopedia entry this is a fair and necessary addition to balance out the article. Charles Jeffrey Danoff 15:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Jeffrey Danoff (talk • contribs)

I found today the page for Tobacco smoking and added the link for how-to smoke a cigarette there. I still feel some sort of reference to the pleasure people get from smoking belongs on this page for neutrality reasons, so I shall leave the link here as well. Of course if someone feels this links does not belong here I understand, but I hope they replace it with a link along similar lines. --Charles Jeffrey Danoff 10:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Jeffrey Danoff (talk • contribs)

What, no WikiProject Tobacco??

Hmm, I'm surprised Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Tobacco didn't go through.. this article and many related to it could use some collaborative editing. -- œ^™ 07:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Alternate diagram

I found File:Cigarette-key.svg on Commons, used on FR Wiki. How does this compare to the current SVG diagram? Which is preferable? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

false part

the artical states the common thoughts of 2nd hand smoke, but fails to mention that the only study proving the effects was thrown out by a fedral court for having been falsified to reach those results. think im making it up? read the studies before putting something about it on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.89.127.209 (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Mr. Anonymous (a.k.a. University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee). I guess you're right, and the entire worldwide health care community is wrong. Sounds like someone's moving to North Carolina... HuntClubJoe (talk) 07:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Smoking

hey does any1 know what the main chemicals found in a smoke are? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.42.94 (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Reference desk. -- œ^™ 13:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Cigarette litter

In the article here, it is noted that cigarette butts are biodegradable. According to an article in EOS-magazine, May 2010, this is definitly not the case, it only was the case when made from cotton or viscose or paper (ie brands: Gauloise, Gitane). According to Charles Moore, several environmental organisations, and professor Tom Novotny. In addition, since there have been several projects from cigarette manufacturers to produce biodegradable cigarette butts, we can be quite sure that they are indeed non-biodegradable. For example, Philip Morris researched biodegradable cigarette butts (in 1972) and a possible winner was prototype A35. In 1990, another research was done, and a report was made on the issue. In 1994, R.J Reynolds also had 5 prototype butts; in the same year Coresta set up the Cigarette Butt Degradability Task Force, which was finally disbanded in 2000. Finally, in 2003, Robert Walker made another biodegradable filter, and in 2005, Biotec also made a biodegradable filter.

Add info to article 91.182.143.202 (talk) 12:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Much too US-centric

This article focuses far too much on the US. The early sections are entirely about America, and we are even treated to a history of cigarettes in army rations! Later we get minute statistics for each US state. I was hoping to find out basic information about how smoking has declined in the UK, but it's just lumped in with Europe. APW (talk) 06:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Much too anglo-centric. Almost nothing about continental Europe and about the related laws and issues (including advertisment) around the world (what about Latin America? What about India?...!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.233.178.207 (talk) 07:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Cigarettes as a fire source

In the standfirst, it says "Cigarettes are the most frequent source of fires in private homes". This is not true. UK 2007 statistics show the three commonest ignition sources to include: smoking materials as the cause of 3,076 fires, cooking appliances as the source of 23,805 fires, other (than electrical distribution) electrical appliances as the source of 5,389 fires, all out of a total of 43,351 fires - all figures are for dwellings. Assuming UK figures are typical, that makes the statement not merely untrue but suspiciously biased.

To recap, UK 2007 statistics say: cooking appliances 54.9%, other electrical appliances 12.4%, smoking materials 7.1%.

I would suggest, and recommend, a change in wording to "Cigarettes are a frequent source of fires in private homes". 90.155.70.34 (talk) 13:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think even that is true. According to NFPA statistics (see, e.g. [2], or many other docs on the same site) smoking materials cause only 5% of house fires, which barely beats out candles (4%.) (That 5% is for all smoking materials, although cigarettes probably make up the great bulk of those; pipes are not only much less common, but also better insulated. And chewing tobacco isn't going to start any fires.) The most frequent causes of house fires in the US are actually, in descending order: cooking and cooking equipment; heaters; arson; and "other" faulty equipment or wiring.

Where cigarettes are the leading cause is for fires in private homes that result in a death. This is said to be because fatalities in domestic fires usually occur if the adults are in bed asleep, at which point there is no cooking taking place, and the heaters and other appliances are either turned off or at least turned down to low current drains. (Other factors are that the elderly are far more likely to be killed in a house fire; and that a surprisingly high 7% of house fire fatalities involve medical oxygen.) However, a) surely the biggest factor is that smokers are less sensitive to the smell of smoke (OK, that's OR, but you know it's true); and b) the total numbers of fatalities in domestic fires is so surprisingly low that just stating that cigarettes are the worst here, is misleading. I was actually rather astonished to see that there is less than 1 fatality per 400 fires! In particular, annual death toll from smoking related fires is around 820. Not a nice figure, but that's about half as many as die from acute complications of a hernia, or 1/3 as many as die from malnutrition within the USA, or 1/6th as many as those poor souls whose cause of death is determined to be "unspecified events of undetermined intent." In other words, smoking related house fires are not a common cause of death. -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 12:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Reconstituted tobacco?

What is reconstituted tobacco? The word suggests it has somehow been recycled, but one would think that would be pretty much impossible after smoking it as it is incinerated in the process. Or if this was about the unburnt rest in the stump, considering that all the smoke and condensate of the incinerated part of the cigarette have passed through it and turned it into a disgusting, stinking, sludgy mess, and there are not really any great recycling operations in place for cigarette stumps, that also seems not to be it.--Cancun771 (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

According to google, reconstituted tobacco is made by getting processing scraps from cutting and shredding operations, mixing with water and glycerine, rolling into a sheet and drying it. -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Opening of article slightly biased?

Most of the information in the third paragraph of the article seems like it should be moved to subsequent sections. The rates of smoking should probably be restricted to the "consumption" section, and the information on health effects should be moved to the "health issues" section. It just seems like the article is stating the detrimental and negative aspects of cigarettes immediately. I know it's not controversial at all in this point in time that cigarettes are, for the most part, considered detrimental to health (disregarding the smoker's paradox), but I still don't see why the third paragraph needs to come off as a "Truth" add. Prove you're robot (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, the very definition of cigarette is wrong!

The page currently says: "The term cigarette, as commonly used, refers to a tobacco cigarette but can apply to similar devices containing other herbs, such as cloves or cannabis". But nobody calls rolled marijuana a cigarette except the US propaganda machine et al. And they're a pretty biased group. No one who actually smokes weed calls their joint/blunt a cigarette. Sorry if I did this wrong or if my idea is wrong, first post, peace —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zooted42 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Third hand smoke?

In paragraph 3 of the article there is the statement "New research has shown that thirdhand smoke, which are caused (sic) when tobacco traces are transmitted through a secondhand smoker to a third person, increases the probability of lung-related diseases."

This statement does not have any source attributed and I would suggest it should be removed if it cannot be proven. The only evidence that I can find of reference to studies relating to third hand smoke comes from a study in the Journal of Paediatrics - http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/1/e74.full entitled "Beliefs About the Health Effects of “Thirdhand” Smoke and Home Smoking Bans".

This was in no way a study of the effects of third hand smoke. It was a series of telephone interviews to find out what random members of the public "believed" about third hand smoke. In the pre-amble that its objective states that "Thirdhand smoke is residual tobacco smoke contamination that remains after the cigarette is extinguished. Children are uniquely susceptible to thirdhand smoke exposure." Where is the evidence of this? The study itself seems highly biased and based on an assumption about the harmfulness of third hand smoke without any substantive research to back it up.

2.102.108.15 (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Cigarettes not addictive?

Nicotine, the primary psychoactive chemical in tobacco and therefore cigarettes, is psychologically addictive, although it does not engender a physiological dependency (e.g. discontinuation does not evoke somatic withdrawal syndromes as do drugs such as alcohol or opioids).

Utter bullshit top to bottom and unsourced. Does not engender a physiological dependency? Please. How did this shit get into the lead? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The first citation is rubbish. I read the first page and it is clear it is not a reliable source, nor is it anywhere remotely close to the quality of a peer reviewed paper. Someone get rid of it. I came to this page to find information on cigarettes. I got blasted in every section on the evils of smoking. Can I make a suggestion that this page be more neutral in tone? Yes, we all know that cigarettes are bad, but you don't see people talking about gun murders in every section on a wiki page on guns do you? 70.79.187.234 (talk) 05:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

"light" cigarette

According to a decision on a lawsuit brought by the USA against Philip Morris, and Philip Morris own documents, the only difference between regular cigarettes and a "light" cigarette is tiny holes placed on the paper that increase the air flow. This increase in air flow increases the mutability of the smoke, i.e. making so-called "light" cigarettes even more likely to cause cancer and tumors than regular cigarettes. Philip Morris has been banned from using the term "light" in the USA.

This is not true. Most light cigarettes are now made by expanding the tobacco, thereby having the same amount of tobacco have more volume, therefore, each cigarette has less tobacco, making them lighter. Not necessarily healthier, but most certainly lighter. But the thing about the paper being the only difference is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. The filter is more dense for starters. Seriously people, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, actually what what your talking about before you post. 24.98.250.155 (talk) 11:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

11 minutes

There is no evidence whatsoever to support the ludicrous claim that cigarettes take each cigarette takes 11 minutes off of your life. Though it is true beyond a doubt that smoking can lower life expectancy across the board, IF all other things are equal, it is literally impossible to claim each one took 11 minutes off of life. IDK about you, but every smoker I know varies; one day they smoke 10 cigs, another 30. To continue to support this 11 minute claim is a sad example of people's views getting in the way of they're common sense. I checked the "reference", it was not a study or anything that substantiated the 11 minute claim. No, all the link is, is a pamphlet style page for health care provisional, telling them how to counsel smokers to quit. The 11 minute claim is only listed under the "loss of life" section, and, not to mention the page was made by the NYC government. And as we all know, the government does not have a good track record with facts.

So let's review kids: 1. No one could ever possibly know how many cigarettes someone has smoked, making even a single claim of how much life each one took off impossible to determine, and trying to make an average of a population is laughable and 2. The "source" cites no study, is "anti-smoking" and written for the purpose of encouraging patients to quit, and it is a goverment document. That is as POV as it gets.

You can't find a study concluding an individual cigarette takes any amount of life, because one doesn't exist, and will never exist, because it is impossible. ON the other hand, saying that a lifetime of smoking takes a certain amount of years off, I can accept. Granted, it is still technically impossible to estimate, since you never know how long or how much people smoked, the kind of cigarettes( carlton's vs Camel classic non-filters vs. Natural American Spirit Organic) but at leats it serves a purpose to guess, on average, the number of years a smoker can lose, than to make up a fictional number that was pulled out of someone's ass.

Please, please quit pushing this joke, and keep to posting things that can be proven, and that serve a purpose, because otherwise I am going to post how many minutes taking a shot of whiskey knocks off your life, or better yet, how many minutes each mile you drive on the highway...