Talk:Cigarette/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Legal age in Germany

was raised to 18. Please edit the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.142.206.232 (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Legal age in England Tense Problem

As it is now past October 1, 2007, I think we need to change the "will be"s to "has been"s. Also, I have heard from people in England stating that this is quite well know now, so it seems just silly to leave it in its current form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.115.66 (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

History of Cigarettes?

One thing conspicuously omitted from this article is much of a history of the cigarette, how and when it was invented, who invented it, and where it first became popular, and how. That is what I mainly came to this article to find out. Instead, it turns out to be another antismoking sounding board. There seems to be a school of thought that cigarettes cannot be even talked about without a health disclaimer, which is odd because I cannot think of anything else whose unhealthfulness is better known and more synonymous with it. Mal7798 23:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

And when did smopking cigarettes become acceptable for women?--TDKehoe 20:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Also the establishment of major cigarette brands. Maisma gardens (talk)

Nicotine

The only information on this page about nicotine is in the "links" and "references" section. isn't nicotine one of the key products in a cigarette? doesn't this mean it should be mentioned and described more?

Lung cancer

I understand the rationale for merging the previous health sections into the larger Health effects of tobacco smoking article. However, smoking-induced lung cancers are an extremely important issue surrounding cigarettes. Shouldn't there be a section addressing this topic? Tarcieri 02:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - there should be a section on cigarettes and health added here.

There already are articles on smoking, tobacco, and even smoking bans, and there are other articles talking about the hazards and controversy of smoking in general, and this article links to some of the directly, and probably to all of them indirectly. This article should include nothing that is not specific to cigarettes. A statement such as "cigarettes are generally considered to be the most harmful delivery device for tobacco" (but not exactly that line) should be the limit of health issues in the cigarette article. Details about the health hazards are more appropriate in the smoking article. Mal7798 05:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Mal7798. Include a link to health effects of tobacco smoking and leave the rest of the article alone. Littering the tobacco-related articles with duplicate material from that article makes no sense. Frotz 06:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Mass-- net weight of tobacco in each cigarette?

I noticed that the maximum dimensions of a typical cigarette are mentioned, but nowhere (that I could find, anyway, I'm not infallible :) ) does the article give the average amount of tobacco in a cigarette. I shall now try to find this information (I don't think it'll be too hard, but in case someone just sees this and KNOWS...) AnarchyElmo 02:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Apparently the average (tobacco) cigarette contains about 1 gram of tobacco, can anyone sanity check me with their own search? AnarchyElmo 03:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I read somewhere that the average pack of cigarettes has 1oz (28g) of tobacco, so it's probably something around there. Nemilar 03:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I weighed a regular Winston and found that the net weight of the tobacco was 700 mg. That means two packs add up to about an ounce. If you buy cigarets in Chicago this year you are spending $14/ounce.

Did you notice that the number of milligrams is not currently printed either on the cigaret nor on the packaging anywhere, why is there no law requiring it be listed?

(As for listing the ingredients, there's not enough room on the cover.)

I think an article about cigarettes, the greatest genocide weapon in the history of the planet, should inform readers not only that the cigarette burns at 1500 degrees F in the tip and is the most harmful of all smoking methods, but that an alternative exists-- a quarter-inch-inner-diameter screened-crater anti-overdose utensil, for 25-mg. servings, with LSMFT (Life-Saving Minimum Firing Temperature) which you can make out of a socket wrench, a hose nipple, and many other materials-- preferably with a long draw tube giving the smoke more time to cool before it hits your trachea.64.107.3.112 00:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Important?

Uruguay is the first and only country in the world that recently made illegal to smoke in ANY closed space such as bars, offices, restaurants... (anything except in your own house, lol), is that worth mentioning on the article? Wesborland 01:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe Bhutan has also done this quite recently. Mal7798 05:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good thing to put down.Sjschen 14:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It may be a "good thing to put down", but not in this article. Such a statement belongs more appropriately in smoking or smoking bans. It is not specific to cigarettes. Mal7798 05:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Smoking in Argentina

Ummmmm, that thing about Uruguay, is happening here, in Argentina. It became illegal to smoke in public places. Someone might want to add that in?

Done! Wesborland 21:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Consumption Stat Seems Off

Can this statistic under "consumption" be right: "Approximately 5.5 trillion cigarettes are produced globally each year by the tobacco industry, smoked by over 1.1 billion people, which is more than 1/6 of the world's total population." That comes out to 5000 cigarettes a smoker per year, or 13 a day per smoker. Just seems high and there's not citation. Someone want to check that? Ultramontane 16:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Cigarette packs have 20-25 cigarettes in each, with some up to 50, so heavy smokers would offset casual smokers, and the average would be about 1/2 a pack a day.203.59.11.97 16:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"Public Place"

Just as a side note for those that want to be accurate; bars, restaurants, casinos, movie theaters, malls, etc., are not "public places." They are owned by private interests, not the government, so they are "private" by definition. Just because a business encourages customers to enter their establishment, that does not make that business "public." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.58.233.66 (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Actually, they are considered public places if everyone has the right to enter them. Especially considering that for those places it's illegal to have a certain admission policy that goes against the laws on discrimination. --Wesborland 16:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The U.S. Supreme court in Lloyd Corp v. Tanner decided that a place of business does not become public property because the public is invited in. The anti-discrimination laws refer to specific groups. Even they are fair game for exclusion if excluded for reasons other than those outlined by the statute.

Canadian law differs on this one, mate. See, here we have a smoke free places act (in about four provinces now) which bans smoking in public places which INCLUDE, in our legal lexicon, bars, restauraunts, etc. In America, I'm sure it may work like that. But Canada's always been of the tack to restrict the rights of the few over the health of the many. Don't know how relevant it is, but the article seems heavily Amerocentric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.206.159 (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

British Colloquialism

I've added the British Colloquialism "fag" to the heading paragraph a couple of times. When I've come back, it's been completely removed both times. Being moved from the first paragraph isn't that big a deal, even though I think it should go there. I at least expected it to remain somewhere within the article though. It's an important fact that many British people call a cigarrette a fag. I don't want to add it again since that would be the third time, and seem like I'm trying to start an edit war. So I'm asking for some editor consensus. If you think it should be added, please say so. If it seems that alot of people agree, please add the reference appropriately to the article. If you don't agree, please leave your reason why here as well. Thanks. --Davidkazuhiro 12:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article should note this common slang. Perhaps "A Cigarette (colloquially known in England as a Fag)..." or something of that nature. However, due to the fact that "fag" is a word of negative connotation in America, it should not be used interchangeably with "Cigarette" in the article. Nemilar 17:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not to be used interchangeably. I will use your suggested form of reference and see what happens --Davidkazuhiro 14:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to insert it repeatedly. Nemilar, this is a British slang term (and as far as I know an Irish one too) not exclusively an English one. Remember not to use the words British and English interchangeably, you're only going to offend people. -- IslaySolomon | talk 04:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I've altered the opening paragraph accordingly and added a reference. I'm not sure this is the answer though. I'm sure there are a great many slang terms for cigarettes the world over and this feels a lot like systemic bias. A section on alternative names might be the answer but bearing in mind that Wikipedia is not a dictionary it might be best to leave the slang to the disambiguation pages. -- IslaySolomon | talk 04:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

A subsection sounds good. I apologize for using English instead of British. That was due to ignorance and nothing else. Wikipedia is indeed not a dictionary, but stating a colloquialism isn't the same as what a dictionary does, in fact, it is opposite. Having significant colloquialisms as a part of the article would represent the variety of cultural contexts which is integral to anything as international as a cigarette. --Davidkazuhiro 06:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing that it's a common slang term, but the way it's portrayed in the first sentence seems to imply that the two terms are used interchangeably, at the exception of all other slang terms for a cigarette. You're listing one slang term out of very many, and the term fag really isn't ubiquitous enough that it needs to be featured so prominently in the article. Let's use the common standard term first, and then address slang terms later on in the article.

Sumixam (previous poster), I've reverted your edit for now. I agree with your argument that it should be placed elsewhere. Please don't say "let us" if you don't intend to do it yourself though. And remember to sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~. I'll make the changes you suggested as soon as I'm able. --Davidkazuhiro 22:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is not much point making a separate section for colloquialisms unless there are other ones than "fag" to include. Most of the editors involved in this discussion impy they share IslaySolomon's assumption that "there are a great many slang terms for cigarettes the world over". I was unable to find reference to any such slang via google, but I'm bad at finding things in general. If any of you can find a reference to slang/colloquial terms for ciggarette from other regions in the world, please go ahead and create a slang/colloquialism subsection with the appropriate citations. --Davidkazuhiro 01:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm perfectly willing to accept that "fag" is an unusually well established piece of slang. However, that's all it is: slang. Considering that 1. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a jargon or usage guide and 2. Wikipedia is not a travel guide, I really can't see the merit of telling a reader which slang name to use when asking for a cigarette on a very small area of the Earth's surface. Besides which, inserting slang (albeit well referenced slang) into an article is only going to open the flood gates for a tidal wave of "ciggies", "cigs", "cancer-sticks", "smokes", "tabs" etc. -- IslaySolomon | talk 05:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Very good point IslaySolomon, I can see your concern a lot more clearly now. My goal of mentioning the term "fag" is to cover a notable facet of culture surrounding cigarettes rather than to make a slang usage or travel guide. This is where your interpretation of WP:DICDEF makes the difference. My difficulty with the opinion to not include based on the argument of "it belongs in a dictionary" is that there is no place for the cultural facet of the terminology in a dictionary. If there is no place for it in an encyclopedic article, nor in a dictionary, then there is no place for it anywhere. The closest a dictionary gets is with etymology, but that's still not what I'm going for, or why I am contending for its inclusion. What would you say to my proposition to address significant colloquialisms in the light of there cultural contexts? Perhaps a good example of what I'm going for can be found in the paragraph which discusses terminology in Facial tissue

"Facial tissue is often referred to as a "tissue" or by the genericized trademark "Kleenex" which popularized the invention and its use. The term "paper handkerchief" is also used."

So again, what would your response be to my proposition to address significant colloquialisms in the light of there cultural contexts? --Davidkazuhiro 18:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I say remove the reference to "fag" in the first sentence. There's no need for it anywhere in the article apart from in a "trivia" or "nicknames" section. Davidkazuhiro's beliefs about the use of the term "fag" are misconstrued. The term is one of many slang words for cigarette in the UK and so why shove it into the opening sentence as if there are no other slang words?(82.40.177.159 11:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC))

I will remove the reference from the introductory sentence and place it towards the bottom of the article, due to the many editors who are concerned with its location. We'll see this alternative presentation turns out. By the way 82.40.177.159, I like big words too but it seems you have misconstrued the meaning of the word misconstrue (just slightly). The verb more accurately describes a misunderstanding of meaning and definition than a misguided belief in term usage trends. Thank you all for your input and patience. You're a good lot of editors Wikipedia should have more of. --Davidkazuhiro 08:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Did I misunderstand? I don't think so. :) (82.40.177.159 13:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC))

whatever =D --Davidkazuhiro 07:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it silly that all you people are arguing over the word "fag" -- by trying to make the word seem subtle, you're blowing it out of proportion. It's known as what it's known in different areas of the world. If you're homosexual, be happy that the difference was noticed -- it is not as though the article went "Cigarettes, also know as Fags (definitely not those silly american ones!!!! hhahaha!!) -- I mean come on. If you're not homosexual-- then quit complaining. I say this coming from a bisexual view, and besides, it's not as though Wikipedia is very "Encyclopedia-like" anyway. It's not very PC at all. It's just become another website to argue on and trash other people's ideas/views.

Reference

Hoffmann D, Hoffmann I; The changing cigarette, 1950-1995; JOURNAL OF TOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 50 (4): 307-364 MAR 1997 --Stone 13:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Smoking in Egypt

I am not really sure if this is right right "Egypt it is legal to use and purchase tobacco products regardless of age" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.107.25.187 (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Smoking bans

I added the "off-topic" tag. Wikipedia already has an article about smoking bans and I think it is not necessary to have a section about smoking bans in the Cigarette article. A link saying "Main article: Smoking ban" would be more appropriate. Smoking bans are also off-topic in the Cigarette article because they don't apply only to cigarettes, but to all tobacco smoking. So let's see some opinions before emptying the section about smoking bans and replacing it with a single link to the Smoking ban article. Canjth 01:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is about cigarettes and all the controversy they cause, so I think that section should be kept. --Wesborland 17:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is about cigarettes, not smoking or tobacco, as those are all independent subjects worthy of their own articles. It should not be about anything that is not specific to cigarettes, such as smoking in general. Talk about smoking bans in general has no place in here, since that refers not only to cigarettes. The only kind of ban that could be appropriate on here would be one on cigarettes alone that did not affect cigars or pipes (bans on cigarette advertising could be an example of this). Mal7798 22:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the information in the Smoking Bans section should be merged into the Smoking Bans article, with a link to that article kept here (Main topic: Smoking Bans), with a short paragraph or two summarizing bans world-wide. Please comment on this, and if there is a positive reaction to this idea, I will go ahead and make the necessary edits. Nemilar 17:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is about cigarettes; however, as previously stated the subject of the controversy surrounding their use, while relevant, is not necessarily about cigarettes per se, the entire topic of smoking bans being wider than this limited area. Since it is customary to branch off detailed sub-topics, especially ones that overlap into other areas, on their own page and there already is a page existing concerning this topic, I agree that the merger and linking should be made. James Reed 18:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The articles on smoking bans (Smoking_ban#Smoking_bans_by_country) seem to be very thorough. I'm going to go ahead removing the list from this article, and linking the other relevant articles. Nemilar 15:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I have made the edit, please improve it as you see fit! Nemilar 19:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ciggygoria is a term that describes people(ciggygorians) who kill smokers, & anyone who sells it, as high as Phillip Morris, to marketers, transporters, shopowners etc. Get out your kitchen knife & do your part, so our children aren't growing up in a world of bad influence!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.87.94 (talk) 04:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

'Mistake'

Who put in that absolutely horrible version that replaced a lengthy article with something beginning immediately on the topic of addictiveness? Seems a bit...rubbish. Good job on the revert, though =) Roche-Kerr 15:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

New Cigarette Paper in the US

According to my local liquor store owner, as of January 1 all cigarettes must come with flame-retardant paper as of 1/1/07. This, if true (and I believe these guys) would be an important addition to this article. I have had no luck trying to find this at Google. Indeed, I came to this article to see if I could find the answer. Here's a good link I just found: http://firesafecigarettes.org/itemDetail.asp?categoryID=91&itemID=1370&URL=Letter%20to%20tobacco%20companies

Kovu401 02:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think he was pulling your leg JayKeaton 01:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Kovu401 is correct, the term we're looking for is Low Ignition Propensity Cigarette, United States Patent# 20040200493 (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20040200493.html). This involves specialized paper and tobacco-packing methods to create "speed bumps" along the cigarette, so it goes out by itself if left unattended, reducing the risk of fire (especially for smokers who fall asleep in bed - http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-02-22-cigarettes_x.htm). There's an entire homepage at http://firesafecigarettes.org - Canada and 52% of the U.S. have already adopted them. If anyone is watching this page I would appreciate collaboration on where & how this might all fit into this article. Or maybe a new article - there's tons of info about this regarding the science, legislation, tobacco companies, and demands for it overseas. NormanBrown 01:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone has noticed that cigars will go out on their own when left unattended. Frotz 02:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Class A?

I don't smoke, but I recently started working in a convience store so I've become more familiar with cigarettes. I've noticed that all the packs say "20 class A cigarettes". Does that mean there are other classes, and what sets class A cigarettes apart? 70.238.58.129 04:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Bill

Why did you deem it necessary to mention that you do not smoke in order to make this statement? The "Class B" cigarettes class officially exists, but such cigarettes are no longer manufactured (as of 1996). They refer to cigarettes that "weigh more than three pounds per thousand", while Class A weigh up to that amount. Mal7798 05:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Classes refer to the general size, for taxation purposes. Class A's are usually 80mm by 10mm, but there are other classes. They are horribly, ridiculously hard to find. 71.195.31.101 13:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation problem

In section 4.1 of the article (Contents and health effects: Carcinogens), there is a bullet point which goes like this:

• Benzopyrene is a highly carcinogenic and mutagenic compound which is formed during the incomplete combustion of organic matter. Tobacco manufacturers have experimented with combustion less vaporizer technology to allow cigarettes to be consumed without the formation of carcinogenic benzopyrenes.

I have two problems with this:

• "Combustionless" is not a word, and is not referred to in the cited website.
• Important terms can not be found in the article, such as benzopyrenes. The word vapor can only be found in a caption.

I'm not an expert so I could only make simple observations like these. My humble guess is either the author of this passage is referring to something else such as nitrosamines (which is referred to in the cited article), or has incorrectly cited this passage. I need someone with a bit more experience to make the appropriate edit or explanation here. --Davidkazuhiro 08:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Combustionless is a word which has been used by the tobacco industry for vaporized cigarettes (source), but is probably not the best choice for an encyclopedia article.

Regarding the citation itself, the cited source does not support the statement. Tarcieri 21:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll remove the citation then and put in the citation needed tag. The word combustionless should either be explained or substituted for another word because nobody is going to find it in a dictionary. --Davidkazuhiro 05:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Names for cigarettes (fag, cig)

There seem to be a lot of edits inserting common nicknames for cigarettes in the first sentence of the page. Perhaps a section on common slang words for cigarettes is in order? Or a sepearate article? --Nemilar 04:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

A section would definitely turn into it's own list article very quickly, since there are many terms out there in the English speaking world. --Davidkazuhiro 08:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If someone would show me how, I could make such a page...--M.A.D. Smilez

I recommend adding darts to the list if its gets made. Very common name, at least in Canada. 216.197.255.21 21:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Cancer rates rise dramatically after the 40's.

Cancer Trends During the 20th Century from the Journal of the Australasian College of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine. Örjan Hallberg,a M.Sc.e.e., consultant and Olle Johansson,a Assoc. Professor

http://www.acnem.org/journal/21-1_april_2002/cancer_trends.htm

As you'll see from the charts, cancers rates increased dramatically after the 40's.

Why is this. Is it from smoking or something else. Well as we know in 1942 the first atomic tests where conducted and thereafter hundreds more.

Before being banned by Russia, Britain and America, a total of 711 atmospheric nuclear tests were conducted, thereby creating 711,000 kilograms of deadly microscopic radioactive particles, to which must be added the original 4,200 kilograms from the weapons themselves, for a gross though very conservative total of 715,200 kilograms. There are more than a million lethal doses per kilogram, meaning that your governments have contaminated your atmosphere with more than 715,000,000,000 [715 Billion] such doses, enough to cause lung or skin cancer 117 times in every man, woman and child on earth.

The half-life of radioactive material is 50,000 years. These particles do not go anywhere. This is the real reason for the cancer epidemic, (plus the toxicity of the environment through the use of chemicals and other toxic substances) not cigarettes.

Natural Tobacco and cannabis (not the commercial cigarettes of today) are organic substances that have been used medicinally for thousands of years.70.137.147.51 23:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)MMH.

The above comments have no bearing on the editing of the article. They are also patently ridiculous in the face of rigorous scientific evidence linking cigarette smoking with bronchogenic carcinoma. All the nuclear testing in the world could not be responsible for the statistical over-representation of smokers amongst people with bronchogenic carcinoma (for example at least 95% of small cell carcinomas occur in smokers). To suggest that cigarette smoking is not linked to lung cancer is misinformed and goes against masses of rigorous and scientifically reproduced evidence.

If those graphs referenced above only showed a spike in lung cancers, then your retort might make sense. Instead, many cancers with no connection to smoking show similar spikes. This tells me that smoking doesn't have as much of an impact as you suggest. Instead the culprit would be something new in the environment (water, food, air, etc) starting in the mid to late 1930s. The rapid adoption of chemical pesticides beginning in the 1930s is another likely culprit. Frotz 09:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a common misconception that "cancer" is one disease. It is closer to the truth to look at 'cancer' as being more like a pathological description, like 'inflammation'. When diseases are referred to as 'cancer', all we are saying is that the disease causes a specific group of cells to behave in a particular 'abnormal' pattern, or to display neoplastic changes. This does NOT in any way mean that all cancers are related or of common origin, any more than all 'inflammatory' diseases are, or all 'anaemias' are. The term cancer does describe a variety of illnesses with grouped cellular changes, but it is NOT the case that all cancers are variations of the same disease, or have one unifying cause.

Additionally, you can nominate all the environmental causes you like to underpin the rise in 'cancer' rates, in many cases environmental factors are indeed known to alter rates of specific illnesses (eg radiation and some hematological malignancies), but if you are stating that there is no connection between smoking and bronchogenic carcinoma then the data should NOT show disproportionate representation of smokers amongst this particular subset of 'cancers'. If one global underlying cause were responsible then smokers and non-smokers should be represented *equally* in the data. As I stated above this is clearly not the case. There is a clear and demonstrable link between smoking and bronchogenic carcinoma (as distinct from the inaccurate catch-all phrase 'cancer') which is rigorously supported by scientific evidence.

I'm still not convinced that stray factors have been entirely accounted for. For instance, radon rarely had a chance to build up prior to weatherstripping and other practices that tend to trap radon. If you're the same person who posted the retort I replied to, please consider signing up for a Wikipedia account. Frotz 06:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

But that's entirely not the point. If radon exposure were a cause of lung cancer specifically, then lung cancer rates should be the same in smokers and non-smokers. It doesn't make sense for ubiquitous environmental factors (that therefore affect everyone, smoker and non-smoker alike) to single out smokers! And especially not when we're talking about SUCH a disparity in incidence - it's not like lung cancer occurs 60% of the time in smokers and 40% of the time in non-smokers, 80%-90% of all lung cancers occur in smokers with even higher disparity in some subsets of lung cancer (like small cell carcinoma as mentioned above).

Do you have a cite for this 80-90% figure? It seems a post-hoc fallacy. Frotz 06:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

First you could try the Surgeon-General's report on the health effects of smoking from 2004, which can be found through www.cdc.gov. It outlines in great detail the statistics linking cigarette smoking to lung cancer (and other cancers for that matter if you're interested). The report has summarized epidemiological data from across the United States and includes references to international sources.

Secondly, these figures are cited in reputable medical journals such as the Lancet Oncology journal (Lancet Oncol. 2003 Jan;4(1):45-55 for one reference) and repeated numerous times in reputable textbooks of pathology (such as Robbins' Pathological Basis of Disease - chapter 16 of the 6th edition). In this excellent book there are also very informative descriptions of the gradations of cryptological and molecular neoplastic change found in the lungs of smokers even before they are diagnosed with lung cancer, refuting your suggestion of the association being a post hoc fallacy (in that it is not just the temporal relationship that leads us to propose the connection, there is demonstrable biological evidence of causation even apart from the high statistical association). In addition there is an excellent article often cited by oncologists called Epidemiology of Lung Cancer, by Alberg and Samet (1994) - see http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/content/full/123/1_suppl/21S#B45 for the text.

Thirdly, may I say firsthand as a doctor that the above figures fit my observations through work (in that the lung cancer patients I have seen have been almost exclusively cigarette smokers). This clearly is not a citable source, I just wanted to point out that the academia really is borne out at ground level, as it were.

Lastly, if you are so set on statistical rigour (and well done for that!) how have you excluded your cited data and proposed causal factors (such as weather stripping, "rapid" adoption of chemical pesticides) from the realms of post hoc fallacy? 203.59.213.230 14:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Carly

I do not exclude things like weatherstripping, chemical pesticides, etc. I'm pointing out that each of them are every bit as likely to cause health problems that are attributed to smoking. Until those are weeded out with careful selection of controls, then your data are useless.

Are you familiar with the case of the computer that was taught to find enemy tanks? A program was presented with assorted pictures, some of which had tanks camouflaged in them. The process went something like this: "A tank is in this picture. Study it." and "There is no tank in this picture. Study it.". After a several rounds of this, the program was presented with pictures it never saw before. All the pictures were classified correctly. Sometime later, after several more demonstrations to brass, someone noticed that all the pictures with tanks were taken with a similar angle relative to the sun. The non-tank pictures were taken with the camera pointed in the opposite direction. In other words, the computer was not recognizing tanks, but where the sun was.

Frotz 05:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I know you don't exclude them. I was pointing out that you cannot claim on one hand that recognized and reproducible statistics regarding cigarettes and lung cancer are post hoc fallacy, and then go on to say that just because cancer rates rose AFTER the putative environmental changes that you nominate, there is some causative relationship between the two (this is a classic example of post hoc fallacy until you provide the data to support causation).

You still don't seem to have addressed the weighting of bronchogenic carcinoma towards smokers. As I have stated in several of my replies it is a statistical impossibility for a ubiquitous environmental factor (such as your chemical pesticides or weatherstripping) to cause weighting of incidence towards smokers. These environmental factors affect non-smokers equally but non-smokers are highly underrepresented in bronchogenic carcinoma. Another way to explain this would be to say that a 'variable' that affects two test groups equally (in this case smokers and non-smokers) can have no effect on the validity of data assessing the *difference* between the two test groups - ie, if smokers and non-smokers are equally exposed to this ubiquitous environmental factor then any variation in incidence between the groups HAS statistical validity. A made-up example to highlight this would be a clinical trial testing two anti hypertensive drugs, A and B, in people with essential hypertension. Let's say in this trial the two arms were taking one pill of A or B per day, with exactly 250mL of water drunk with each pill. Let's then say B was shown to reduce blood pressure by twice as much as A. If someone declared that it was in fact the drinking of 250mL of water a day (the ubiquitous factor) that was responsible for lowering blood pressure, then there should be no statistical difference between the blood pressure lowering of A and B. If there is statistical difference then it cannot be said to be due to the water that all participants drank with their tablets. If we are all living in the same environment, smokers and non-smokers mixed together, then environmental factors CANNOT be responsible for the *discrepancy* between lung cancer incidence in smokers and non-smokers.

You then go on to doubt this statistical weighting, but if you refer to the sources I listed above (and they're interesting reads) you will see that not only is this statistical weighting true and reproducible but in addition causation can be biologically established by studying tissues and observing the spectrum of neoplastic change within the lungs of smokers. As these changes make up the very histological diagnosis that we are talking about (ie if the changes are present the disease is labeled bronchogenic carcinoma) they are not some irrelevant proxy observation, they are observations of the very disease in question. The data are most certainly not useless if interpreted correctly.

203.59.213.230 16:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Carly

Whether or not there are 'environmental factors', objectively reproducible statistics show a scientifically indisputable link between cigarettes and lung cancer. To say otherwise requires you to supply a different reason why lung cancer rates (as distinct from a grouping of ALL cancers) are so weighted towards smokers.

And sorry I didn't sign my previous comments - I don't really get enough time to edit to make it worth having an account, but my name is Carly. 203.59.16.43 06:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Carly

I find it interesting that the poster was referring to radiation fallout from testing since the 1940's. Smoking tobacco in combination with this environmental pollution may increase the cancer risks (more so than historically) and I also find it interesting that your arguments citing causation (possibly just correlation? I don't care) were done post-1940's. That makes it difficult to assume directly that ONLY the tobacco (natural and chemically altered) causes the cancer. I provide such an example "since earliest man has evolved, we have been working under the sun without suntan lotion, billions of humans have lived as such, yet even to modern times, skin cancer is extremely low" Unfounded fears? But don't get me wrong, inhaling smoke is bad, but with these same statistics one would cite that secondhand-smoke causes HIGHER rates of cancer than active smoking, I tend to become skeptical of any medical research, pro or con. -DubMan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.253.165.30 (talk) 23:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

India changes by 160.254.20.253

Can someone assert, cite or demonstrate that this edit pertaining to India made by 160.254.20.253 is in fact a verifiable truth? --Davidkazuhiro 09:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Prison Currency

These things are used in PRISON as currency. Where can this be placed ? 65.173.105.125 02:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

They were also used as such in the immediate aftermath of World War 2 in Germany. Frotz 08:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

History

There are no, or little details on the history of Cigarette's, to me this seems like a rather big aspect of this topic that has clearly been overlooked. This is a separate issue to the history of tobacco, as such the design of a Cigarette, including the paper used, the filter, with the brown/orange and yellow spots. Why and where does this come from? These kind of details are critical to an article such as this. --Hm2k 10:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing. Rather unencyclopedic, hmm? 18:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, the design of the paper on the filters of some cigarettes imitates the appearance of cork, which is what early cigarette filters were made from. Sorry, I read that years ago and no longer have the book (don't even remember the title now), or I would add it to the article. Heather 17:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Colloquial Names (New Article)

Alright, I've had about enough...I'm going to take it upon myself to create a new article for a listing of colloquial names for cigarettes. Any input would be greatly appreciated. -- Nemilar 06:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. The new article is located at Nicknames for Cigarettes. Hopefully this will stop the madness of edits/reverts to this article. Please expand the list as you see fit. Be bold! -- Nemilar 06:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

creep over from Health_effects_of_tobacco_smoking

It seems that roughly a third of this article is composed of material that really belongs in Health_effects_of_tobacco_smoking and adds nothing to the subject of cigarettes. Why? Frotz 20:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking the exact same thing. Either we merge the page Health_effects_of_tobacco_smoking into the cigarette page and then create pages for cigarettes_in_culture and another for history_of_cigarettes, or we should cut out a lot of the Health_effects_of_tobacco_smoking material in the main cigarette page. JayKeaton 01:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

NOT stress relief

I have just found out an important fact. It appears that, unlike popular belief, cigarettes don't have the after effect that causes you to relax. They Do the exact opposite, When you are "addicted" what is really happening is the nicotine and other additives are mentally and physically aggravating and stressing you when your not smoking. This causes the feeling of stress and the only way to relieve this "stress" is to give yourself more nicotine AKA smoking. I think someone should add this to the health problem section, under addictiveness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.207.79.208 (talk) 02:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

This article isn't the place for it. Try health effects of tobacco smoking instead. Frotz 08:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Legal Age in Switzerland

The fact that you can buy tobacco in Switzerland, despite the age, is not true. In most of the states (cantons) in Switzerland, the legal age of smoking and buying tobacco is 16, in a few even 18 (like in the canton of Basel where i live). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.76.222.2 (talk) 10:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

So the fact that it says it is illegal to buy or smoke cigarettes in Switzerland is wrong in this article? Thought so. Peesemould 17:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Natural delicious flavor???

What is this, a commercial for big tobacco in an encyclopedia? Jasonid 02:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it. It was most likely someone seeking to cause trouble. Frotz 06:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Statements promoting cigarette use are inappropriate in this article, and were appropriately deleted. But statements discouraging their use are equally inappropriate in this article. Mal7798 08:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Can't find it!!!

Sorry i was just wondering if you might be able to include how many different substances are in a cigarette. I don't think it was on the page but I might have been mistaken. Just trying to help out. Ot108 03:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

How many

I've figured it out there are over 4000 chemicals in a cigarette the most well known are Tobacco Smoke: Tobacco smoke, Tar, Nicotine and Carbon Monoxide Ot108 03:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

why

why did you delete my section on chemicals Ot108 01:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I deleted this section because it was written in an encyclopedic tone and needed to be integrated into another section of the Cigarette article. This information, which is relevant, could also belong in Tobacco smoking, Health effects of tobacco smoking, or Chemicals in a cigarette. Don't forget to add a source to support your statement. Thanks for your contributions. Canjth 14:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Better Image

I placed a better optimized (large) image rather than the current. It too looks good Iam reverting - Paul Raj 13:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• This image is very confusing because there looks like to be two cigarettes while it is not obvious that the cig is on a mirror and of the sentence below the pic being singular. This previous pic of two cigs was very good and should be restored. Canjth 00:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with Canjth, for the same reasons. The other picture was just fine, and better than the one it has been changed to. The new one looks like two cigarettes, because of the mirror, therefore the caption is confusing. The previous picture was great, there's no reason to change it. --Nemilar 02:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Also of note is that the previous image is 49KB, while the one Paul Raj has replaced it with is half a megabyte (512KB). I don't see how it is "better optimized"; in fact it is worse. I don't know wiki policy on this, but if there are no more objections, I will revert to the old image, if only to save users the bandwidth and confusion of the new one. --Nemilar 07:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• I have reverted to the old image for the reasons listed above. --Nemilar 17:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Reason for mentioning "Kerala"?

Can someone explain why there is a reference to Kerala in this article? I don't see the significance in mentioning the laws of a particular state in India. If there is one, it should be explained or referenced... somehow. Donimo 12:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 [3]. —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)

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)

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)

There are two citations for the claim that cigarette filters are biodegradable. The first one is dead and the second leads to a cigarette manufacturer, hardly a credible source on this issue. This claim needs to be removed. There is no legal definition of “biodegradable,” but the American Society for Testing and Materials defines the term as “a degradation caused by biological activity, especially by enzymatic action, leading to a significant change in the chemical structure of the material.” The European Union deems a material biodegradable if it will break down into mostly water, carbon dioxide and organic matter within six months. Cigarette filters do not degrade in 6 months. 67.226.171.123 (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Arguing for the claim that cigarette filters are not biodegradable: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2697937/ "Cigarettes Butts and the Case for an Environmental Policy on Hazardous Cigarette Waste" 67.226.171.123 (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

This one might be the article cited. According to the article and to my knowledge standard Filter take quite some time to break down though they are not "biodegradable". But there are food-starch and cotton based filters that are biodegradable. The section just needs some rewrite and acceptable sources.TMCk (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2012 (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. [4], 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)

"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)

Edit request on 22 March 2012

Average price of cigarettes in the UK is £6.50=>£7.00 with an additional 5% being added in the UK Tax budget today. Article cites £5-£6 http://www.mysupermarket.co.uk/tesco-price-comparison/Tobacconist/Marlboro_Gold_King_Size_Cigarettes_20.html

96.254.43.13 (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused: what do you want me to do? Please copy to here the exact text that you want to be removed, and follow it with the exact text that you want to be put in its place. When you've done this, please modify the editsemiprotected template by changing "answered=yes" to "answered=no". Nyttend (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4/1/12 (no, not an April Fool's Joke)

The ranking for the amount of people who smoke in the U.S. is a bit off-balanced. It starts on #14, not #1. Can someone please fix this? I'm an IP and therefore can't edit this protected page. This error is under the section "Consumption". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.163.228 (talk) 11:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect Information Regarding Legality of Tobacco Sales In Egypt

According to the cigarette ban page and other internet sources, Egypt has not banned the sale or us of cigarettes for all as the article indicates.

Cshepley (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Outdated UK cigarette price

17:12, 25 January 2011 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattParr1995 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 25 January 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by KVDP (talk • contribs) 09:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Cigarette Advertising

Due to a lack of information about cigarette advertising in the United States as well as the ways the government restricted advertising in the 20th century I added these three paragraphs covering those issues.

Tobacco advertising can be seen in the United States as early as the year the Constitution was ratified, as local tobacco companies placed advertisiements in local newspapers. However, these advertisements were primarily for tobacco and snuff, with cigarette advertising not becoming prominent until the late 1800s upon the invention of two important technologies. First, color lithography was invented in the late 1870s which revolutionized advertising for cigarette companies who could now strengthen and promote their identities to consumers. Now companies could make collectible cigarette cards with every cigarette pack and these cards became very popular. They often pictured people such as movie stars, athletes, and even Native American chiefs. However, these collectible cards were eventually discontinued to save paper during World War II. The second invention was a cigarette-making machine developed in the 1880s that vastly increased the productivity of cigarette companies, who went from making approximately 40,000 hand-rolled cigarettes daily to around 4 million.

The decades in the 20th century prior to World War II consisted primarily of full page, color magazine and newspaper advertisements. Many companies created slogans for their specific cigarettes and also gained endorsements from famous men and women. Some advertisements even contained children or doctors in their efforts to sway new customers to their specific brand. Much of these advertisements sought to make smoking appear fashionable and modern to men and women. Also, since the health effects of smoking weren't entirely proven at this time, the only real opposing argument to smoking was made on moral grounds. However, there were still a substantial amount of doctors and scientists who believed there was a health risk associated with smoking cigarettes. During World War II, cigarettes were included in American soldier's C-rations since many tobacco companies sent the soldiers cigarettes for free. Cigarette sales reached an all time high at this point, as cigarette companies were not only able to get soldiers addicted to nicotine, but specific brands also found a new loyal group of customers as soldiers who smoked their cigarettes returned from the war.

After World War II, cigarette companies advertised frequently on television programs. To combat this move by the cigarette companies, the Federal Communications Commission required television stations to air anti-smoking advertisements at no cost to the organizations providing such advertisements.In 1970, Congress took their anti-smoking initiative one step further and passed the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act, banning the advertising of cigarettes on television and radio starting on January 2, 1971.After the television ban, most cigarette advertising took place in magazines, newspapers, and on billboards. However, in 1999 all cigarette billboard advertisements were replaced with anti-smoking messages, with some of these anti-smoking messages playing parodies of cigarette companies advertising figures and slogans. Since 1984, cigarette companies have also been forced to place Surgeon's General warnings on all cigarette packs and advertisements because of the passing of the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act. Restrictions on cigarette companies became even tighter in 2010 with the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. The act prohibits tobacco companies from sponsoring sports, music, and other cultural events and also prevents the display of their logos or products on T-shirts, hats, or other apparel. The constitutionality of both this act and the Food and Drug Administration's new graphic cigarette warning labels are being questioned under cigarette companies' first amendment rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmmoreno (talk • contribs) 19:05, 15 March 2012 (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)

I would have to disagree since I am also a heavy smoker and will often experience it at any given time light headed, numbness..etc I also disagree that its unpleasent it feels weird no worse than smoking pot. 98.213.103.1 (talk) 10:01, 28 May 2012 (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)

This website documents cigarette butts as the most common litter http://www.cigarettelitter.org/ 70.225.161.202 (talk)lancea longini —Preceding undated comment added 02:18, 16 June 2012 (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)

There needs to be an addition to the history section dealing with marketing (stuff like the 100 mm cigarets of the 1960s and 1970s, the movement to get women to smoke, etc.) 76.106.149.108 (talk) 05:15, 1 July 2012 (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)

alot of potheads would disagree with you on that HuntClubJoe but nice kneejerk militant anti smoker reaction you have there. 98.213.103.1 (talk) 10:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I call BS on this list, it's just another thing that someone with too much time on their hands has done. Trumpy (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2012 (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)

There are no benefits to smoking cigarettes and so it does come across more differently than an article about guns which have many positive uses. Owning and using guns for a prolonged period won't kill you. 70.225.161.202 (talk) lancea longini —Preceding undated comment added 01:44, 16 June 2012 (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... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.250.155 (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

But each mile you drive does not bring you closer to death in itself. 70.225.161.202 (talk)lancea longini —Preceding undated comment added 01:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the placement of this statement really shows that wikipedia is also a site for presenting propaganda. 64.121.172.111 (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Pesticide Inerts and Chemical Additives

Whilst cigarettes where smoked before World War II the big rise in lung cancer comes post WWII. This is at the same time the agrichemical industry became dominant in the culture of tobacco and politically. The rise in lung cancer correlates with the rise in agrichemical use on tobacco yet I have not seen any research comparing natural versus agrichemical produced tobacco in regards to lung cancer. It is virtually not ever mentioned the effect these pesticide residues and inerts, often volatile organic solvents, have in lung cancer development from cigarettes. This is still poorly researched regarding health and certainly in regards to inhalation. Rats, differ markedly to humans in regards to some of these chemical effects eg cholinesterase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.103.70 (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The lifespan increased after WW2 also. People were living longer except for the smokers. Earlier in the century, people would die of some reason before the smoking caught up and killed them. 70.225.161.202 (talk)lancea longini —Preceding undated comment added 02:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

(̅ ̅ ̅ ̅ ̅ ̅ ̅ ̅ ̅ ̅ ̅ ̅ ̅ ̅ ̅ ̅ ̅ ̅()ڪے

(̅ ̅ ̅ ̅ ̅ ̅ ̅ ̅ ̅ ̅ ̅ ̅ ̅ ̅ ̅ ̅ ̅ ̅()ڪے redirect to Cigarette has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 06:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Health effects

In the interests of clairty I have partially re-written the introductory paragraph on health effects and the section about second-hand smoke, drawing upon the more comprehensive health effects of smoking article, I hope in suitably condensed form for this one. John Snow II (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the sentence on cigarette butts being the most common high-rise litter should be removed, as well as the reference cited. The reference is a first-person opinion blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.6.246 (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

2nd Hand Smoke (no doubt for the umpteenth time)

The sources listed for the 2nd Hand Smoke section seem to be largely propaganda pieces from the Tobacco Control Industry not serious science nor do they cite any such. Perhaps someone could take the time to rewrite and link to some real evidence for the claims that SHS 'causes...lung cancer' etc. Even the so called sources cited actually admit that SHS has only been linked to lung cancer (I can 'link' the moon with cheese)109.153.178.145 (talk) 13:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you expect to happen here. Cigarette smoke contains multiple carcinogens and animal tests show that inhaling cigarette smoke causes cancer with significant probability even at the levels seen in second-hand smoke. It's a 'class A' carcinogen, which is known to cause multiple diseases.GliderMaven (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Grammatical Error

"Cellulose acetate and carbon particles breathed in from cigarette filters is suspected of causing lung damage." under cigarette filters, "is" should be "are." 70.113.5.81 (talk) 06:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 11:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Whosestory?

Is that a bit of POV in the first paragraph of "History" (on penis size), and is it history? --Ampwright (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

It was vandalism by an IP, now removed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

E-cigarette research

I have removed the claim that the health effects of e-cigarettes are being 'heavily studied', as all the links presented as sources for this claim are dead, and the only evidence I could find suggested a widespread view that such health effects should be studied carefully - but presented no clear results to demonstrate such research or its outcomes yet. I hope that's helpful. John Snow II (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I have updated the e-cig section with the current opening of the electronic cigarette article.TheNorlo (talk) 04:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2014 - Fixing a broken link

Broken Link:

Updated Link:

Linkrepairman (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Partly done: Thanks for pointing out the dead link. I've substituted another government source. Regards, Older and ... well older (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

f6 image

f6 is no longer produced. Should the image in the beginning of the article be changed to that of a currently produced cigarette brand? WikiWinters (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Added Environmental cigarette information

Hello, For a My college Environmental Chemistry class we have to add Environmental information to a Wikipedia page. For my project i choice to add information on Cigarette filters degradation. We have to "go live" with our additions and then we will be graded on the page and our interaction with people on wikipedia and how our addition grows over time. Thus if you have a problem with my information please edit or talk to me about it, instead of just deleting it all. Thanks Benjamin Haywood (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Still a lot of grammar mistakes and smaller issues like double spaces etc. Removed some of them but you should probably read over it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.177.30.231 (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Health risks

Can we mention the health risks as shown here or is this source not considered reputable? --88.104.136.143 (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 15 external links on Cigarette. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091108181404/http://www.wpro.who.int/media_centre/fact_sheets/fs_20020528.htm to http://www.wpro.who.int/media_centre/fact_sheets/fs_20020528.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080413015539/http://www.state.nj.us:80/cgi-bin/governor/njnewsline/view_article.pl?id=2894 to http://www.state.nj.us/cgi-bin/governor/njnewsline/view_article.pl?id=2894
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150705205659/http://www.abc.state.va.us/licensing/downloads/underagebuyer.pdf to http://www.abc.state.va.us/licensing/downloads/underagebuyer.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091109195142/http://www.taxadmin.org:80/FTA/rate/cigarett.html to http://www.taxadmin.org/FTA/rate/cigarett.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110607113117/http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/consult/_2006/tob-ret/4-draft-ebauche-eng.php to http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/consult/_2006/tob-ret/4-draft-ebauche-eng.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080524200406/http://www.jti.com:80/english/corp_responsibility/ingredients/ingredients_links/comp_tab_nonmat.aspx to http://www.jti.com/english/corp_responsibility/ingredients/ingredients_links/comp_tab_nonmat.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120118190528/http://g2public.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/batco/html/13000/13099/ to http://g2public.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/batco/html/13000/13099/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131004213828/http://www.dickinsonlegg.com/STS/STSframeset.htm to http://www.dickinsonlegg.com/STS/STSframeset.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150629221456/http://www.who.int/tobacco/statistics/tobacco_atlas/en to http://www.who.int/tobacco/statistics/tobacco_atlas/en/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081126224658/http://www.oceanconservancy.org/site/DocServer/Final_ICC_report_2007_release.pdf?docID=2841 to http://www.oceanconservancy.org/site/DocServer/Final_ICC_report_2007_release.pdf?docID=2841
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090225072926/http://www.news.com.au:80/story/0,27574,25027063-1243,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25027063-1243,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120303205818/http://www.bat.com/group/sites/UK__3MNFEN.nsf/vwPagesWebLive/4572237B0C2D456CC1257314004EF667 to http://www.bat.com/group/sites/UK__3MNFEN.nsf/vwPagesWebLive/4572237B0C2D456CC1257314004EF667
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090108193818/http://www.ceredigion.gov.uk:80/index.cfm?articleid=5364 to http://www.ceredigion.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=5364
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150421020514/http://www.who.int/tobacco/en/atlas8.pdf to http://www.who.int/tobacco/en/atlas8.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100725233539/http://lungusa.org:80/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422 to http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422#one

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Electronic cigarette section

It appears that the electronic cigarette section needs a lot of updating. I plan on updating the sections from the updated e-cig article leads in the near future. AlbinoFerret 02:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The first 2 paras seem mostly ok, the next two not so much. In classic QG style it has too much detail and not enough overview. The "safety" section should just be a line or two with links, but there should be more (ie something) on levels of usage. But overall a bit less would be best. There should really be something on the various flopped alternatives the industry has tried to come up with over the years. Johnbod (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Johnbod I have basically just synced the paragraphs to the ledes of the articles and updated the references since its just a summery of the pages. Pretty much done except the last paragraph which I think should come from the Aerosol & eliquid page. AlbinoFerret 20:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Please new Link

http://www.wikihow.com/Roll-Your-Own-Filter-Cigarettes is outdated the information about the length is no more in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.12.10.199 (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Cigarette. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110717191349/http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Tobacco+warning+labels+appear+interior+exterior+package/4312065/story.html to http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Tobacco+warning+labels+appear+interior+exterior+package/4312065/story.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050813011756/http://www.cdc.gov:80/tobacco/search/index.htm to http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/search/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

fire safe cigarette section - mentions that EU was to ban non fire safe cigs in 2011 - is now 2016. Needs updating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9FC0:54:44B7:C68C:A9BC:1567 (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Cigarette. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091229042543/https://www.nyc.gov:80/html/doh/downloads/pdf/chi/chi24-4-pktguide.pdf to http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/chi/chi24-4-pktguide.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512113150/http://www.patentstorm.us:80/patents/5342484-fulltext.html to http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5342484-fulltext.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Ottawa+increase+size+tobacco+warnings/4039002/story.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150426065810/http://allergyclean.com:80/news/uvpcoformaldehyde.htm to http://allergyclean.com/news/uvpcoformaldehyde.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150421020514/http://www.who.int/tobacco/en/atlas8.pdf to http://www.cpirc.org.cn/en/totpope.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/1990s/nat-agesex.txt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150421020514/http://www.who.int/tobacco/en/atlas8.pdf to http://www.bps.go.id/sector/population/table1.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120415213702/http://www.globalink.org/ to http://www.globalink.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2016

217.179.237.34 (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2017

Fourth paragraph,first sentence: "Cigarettes carry serious health risks, which are more prevalent than with other tobacco products." Citation? 50.115.184.135 (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Done I added a citation needed tag. Gulumeemee (talk) 10:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)