Smoke gets up their noses.

There is a song corruption to be done there but I am otherwise occupied at the moment.

This post, I should mention, is brought to you by Lidl’s Abrachan which I have bought as a change from Glen Orchy. It’s a tad more costly and not all that much different but it’s a malt blend and it is actually pretty good. The price is now £17.99, down from the starting price and the difference is small enough to say ‘oh sod it’. Still cheaper and far better than most grain blends.

What was I talking about? Oh yes, nothing, as usual. Right. Harrrumph. Pretend to be sober, like you do at work.

Tomorrow I must talk to the bank people. They hate me. I run my finances very close to the wire these days. Sometimes into single figures but just not quite into the red where they can charge me. It’s almost like I’m taunting them. The balance goes down and down and down and almost to zero then bang – payday.

There is a slight bit of deliberate malice involved, if I’m honest. It is, let’s face it. funny to take your bank balance into single figures the day before payday. Just to give them hope.

Connected with this is the quarterly gamble. This has gone on for about eight years now. Every quarter, I get a bill for lab rent and a cheque from a company that hasn’t sent me any work for a while but who want to keep my lab open and me available. It’s not costing them much. To them it’s petty cash. To me it’s heat or eat.

The cheque more than covers the lab rent, it leaves me with some single-malt money for a while. The gamble is, every time, which will come in first – the cheque or the bill? Every time so far it has been the cheque.

This time it’s the bill. The cheque will be late. It was bound to happen sooner or later.

However, I get the next payday on the same day as the lab rent vanishes. The rent will clean me out but the cheque will bring my account back from the grave. If it arrives in time. What I have to get the Bank of Hating the Almost-But-Not-Quite-Entirely-Skint to agree to is to let me have a temporary overdraft just in case. I’d only need it for a week.

They might well jump at the chance. I can picture the manager saying ‘Gotcha. Finally, ya dodgy wee shite, we gotcha’. We shall see.

Enough about money. It’s not an important thing, especially if you don’t have any. I hear the value of money is in sharp decline and thank all the gods that I don’t have very much of it. What I have instead is an N gauge Minitrix Sir Nigel Gresley in absolutely perfect condition, and which has left stock market percentage gains looking like pocket money. Other old railway stuff has turned into a better investment than anything the FTSE can muster.

But back to the point, if there ever was one.

Frank Davis tells us of new research that says nicotine is not addictive. No, it isn’t. If it was an addiction then patches and gum would work. Their success rate is below placebo success rates. They do not work and are not meant to. They make more money by repetitive failure than they ever could by success. I mentioned this a while back in my most-spammed post ever.

The antismokers are terrified that we will all realise we are not addicted to nicotine. Nicotine is not addictive at all. Nobody has ever sunk into madness or died as a result of nicotine withdrawal.  They just get a bit grumpy and that’s the ones who believe they are addicted, The people I know who stopped smoking and stayed stopped just… stopped. They decided not to do it any more. No slow disassociation, no gradual decline just  ‘Nah, done enough’. No withdrawal symptoms at all. I know people who tried patches and gum. Not one succeeded in stopping smoking. Not one.

Why does it even matter to the Righteous? Consider gay marriage. I am neither gay nor religious and while I accept that the subject might well be a touchy one for some, to me it is of no relevance. I will not campaign either way because I just don’t care. Abortion, the death penalty, and more, have no direct effect on me, I have to raise £600 in a week, that’s my priority today. Not whether Chantelle produces more human flotsam or another filling for Sweeney’s Pie Shop. I don’t care. It is none of my business what other people choose to do with their lives as long as their life choices do not involve controlling mine,

I like to smoke. Is it good for me? I don’t care. I like it. It’s something I do when relaxing. I do not smoke when making tiny models or writing, I smoke in between those times. It harms nobody at all. I currently have a pipe full of cube, a delightfully aromatic blend and have heard no sirens yet. The neighbours are still alive, unfortunately. They have not died of imaginary terrors. Must try harder.

VGIF talks of the iron fist of the cat-herders. I say, let them try. In the olden days we had a saying, ‘give them enough rope and they’ll hang themselves’. It is forgotten now but it will still work.

The antis just need a bit more rope. Just another few inches.


40 thoughts on “Smoke gets up their noses.

  1. “What I have to get the Bank of Hating the Almost-But-Not-Quite-Entirely-Skint to agree to is to let me have a temporary overdraft just in case. I’d only need it for a week.”

    I wish you the best of luck Leg, but here in the States my general experience has been that once you get beyond 24 hours it’s tough, and beyond 48 it’s VERY tough. *HOWEVER* … if you try going straight to a manager — adopting a very serious mein, and refusing to divulge more than “It’s a serious problem with my account. I need to speak to the manager.” sort of approach to the underlings, it’s possible that the manager in question will be so impressed at the depth of your concern over “this highly irregular circumstance” that he/she will give you a pass.

    – MJM


    • I have negotiated a £300 overdraft and still hope not to need it. It’ll mean a week of austerity but the freezer is full of food anyway, and since I’m working both Saturday and Sunday this weekend, boozing would have been very limited in any case.

      There’s a lot of wine getting old in the garage…


    • Success, well mostly. Pay went in and lab rent went out on the same day. I am just clinging on to a positive balance, but it buys me some time. The cheque I’m expecting was delayed by a technical issue. They forgot to send it. I am assured it’s ‘in the post’ now.


  2. Pingback: Smoke Gets Up Their Noses. | VapeHalla! |

  3. Conversely, the better the customer you are, the more they abuse you. My Barclaycard was usually around the limit, so they reckoned that this made me a greater risk, so increased my APR from 16.9% to 23.9%. I paid it all off with a 0% deal from another bank.

    On the subject of things which you don’t think affect you – they do! The ideological subversion and eugenics going on affects us all in one way or another. Ultimately, it will lead to our total undoing.


    • I noticed, when I was earning a lot and didn’t need any bank help, that they were very keen to offer me loans. Then, when I had no money at all and could have done with a bit of help, they didn’t want to know. Now it’s sort of in between – I’m earning a little, so they’ll help… a little.

      You’re right in that all those little things add up – but nobody can fight every battle. I pick the ones that affect me directly. If I ever have no more of those to fight (which isn’t likely) then I can help out with some of the others.


  4. I remember reading, many years ago, that nicotine was not addictive, but that it was/is(?) ‘an habituant’.

    Not sure if this is right, nor if it matters greatly: just saying.


    • The difference is between breaking a habit (like nose-picking) and getting out of a chemical dependence. Smoking is not a chemical dependence. If it was, smokers would not be able to stop abruptly – and many, many do.


  5. I have been reading you for years mate, never really one for commenting, but i take note of every thing.
    Just now, on BBC radio 2, Germy Whine having a go at smoking in cars, you are properly listening and laughing uncontrollable. 13:30 hrs/ It should be on playback or whatever its called..

    thanks for the tips on baccy growing , it grows quite well down this way.


    • Ah, the Germy Whine show is often on at work but I wasn’t there until 2:30 today. I don’t have the TV or radio on at home because it distracts me from writing – and I have far too many ways of distracting myself from that as it is! Work is mindless, no thought required, so the radio is actually a useful thing there.

      There’ll be more whiners banging on about this in the future. Especially if it doesn’t get passed into law. Then they’ll be stamping their little feet all over the place.


  6. I always enjoy reading your mixture. You are a gifted writer and have
    a knack for putting things into perspective. I usually agree with your
    sound common sense but on this occasion I must disagree with the
    comment: ‘nicotine is not addictive’. Although to be fair to you it
    did come from ‘Frank Davis.’ Now I’m an ex-smoker and haven’t smoked
    a fag for nearly 25 years. Very occasionally I’ll indulge in a good
    cigar. I was never a heavy smoker and frankly I enjoyed it. Unlike
    some ex- smokers I haven’t become a strident anti-smoker. I believe we
    should all do as we please with our own bodies and the government can
    bugger off when it comes to how we live our lives. I drink too much and
    have no intention of cutting down. If it shortens my span, then so be

    Nicotine is addictive, it is very addictive. It fulfills all the
    criteria for an addictive substance. I won’t bore you with the
    details. While it is true nicotine does not give an intense ‘high’
    like other addictive drugs, it does have a more subtle euphoric effect.
    I acknowledge we are all different. I acknowledge that there are some
    folk who can smoke without becoming physically dependent. That said, I
    sincerely believe that most smokers are addicted to nicotine to varying degrees. There are many factors which influence this, some psychological and some genetic, and a complex interaction between the two is also involved.

    When I decided to stop smoking, and not for health reasons by the way,
    I underwent intense physical withdrawal symptoms. After two weeks I
    caved in and started to smoke again. This was repeated on a further
    five occasions. In the end I stopped smoking using nicotine gum. It
    relieved the nicotine withdrawal pangs for me. There are those who
    argue that it is stupid to try and come off nicotine addiction by
    using nicotine. I used the gum for 6 months and then stopped for good.
    In my personal experience it was a lot easier to wean myself off the
    gum than the cigs. Interestingly, nicotine is not the only addictive
    chemical present in tobacco.


    • Interestingly, nicotine is not the only addictive
      chemical present in tobacco

      The thirsty rat chose not to drink the saline dosed with the bitter alkaloid, but chose instead to drink the saline without it.

      Certain proof of two addictive chemicals.

      Nicotine not alone in causing addiction

      “At the Smokefree Oceania conference in Auckland, Penelope Truman, of the Institute of Environmental Science and Research, presented a study that was said to show how rats exhibited a greater desire to obtain a dose of smoke from non-nicotinic hand-rolling tobacco than from either doses of nicotine or from smoke from factory-made cigarettes that contained nicotine.”


      • “The overwhelming majority of smokers – 98.4% – failed to achieve long-term sustained abstinence with NRT treatment.”

        “I can’t quite think of another intervention for which a 98.4% failure rate would be considered a success.”

        Paper presented to the FDA’s Substance Abuse Advisory Committee meeting, 2 August 1994, Silver Springs, MD.

        Is Nicotine Addictive? A Re-evaluation of the Data

        2. Special testing conditions are not necessary to demonstrate the potent reinforcing effects of true addictive substances such as cocaine and heroin. By contrast, special testing conditions are necessary to demonstrate nicotine self-administration.

        A. Food deprivation or restricted feeding schedules are frequently used.

        B. Many studies with monkeys used stressed subjects:
        (1) most studies house the monkeys in social isolation, and
        (2) restraint chairs are frequently used to immobilize the subjects.”

        In the end I stopped smoking using nicotine gum

        What the rat that refused the nicotine didn’t have was belief.

        I have tried both NRT and nicotine gum to see if the theory worked.
        The unflavoured nicotine gum was unspeakably vile.

        Nicotine patches were invented by a non-smoking scientist who was working on Green Tobacco Sickness at the time.

        Green tobacco sickness (GTS) is an illness resulting from dermal exposure to dissolved nicotine from wet tobacco leaves; it is characterized by nausea, vomiting, weakness, and dizziness and sometimes fluctuations in blood pressure or heart rate
        http: //

        Now that I do believe.

        Anyway, congratulations, it seems that your faith has set you free and saved you a lot of cash.

        I do recognise the withdrawal though, I experienced three days of it when I swapped from premades to rolling tobacco, I certainly wasn’t expecting that.


        • Rose, you make some valid points. I suspect that our good host ‘legiron’ may object if we carry on our debate through his medium but I am always willing to listen to the informed thoughts of others. I kept my original comment brief and left out stuff, because this is not my blog. For similar reasons I’ll keep this short.
          You jokingly mentioned faith. Bad science like ‘bad faith’ should be ignored. Science is not infallible but the scientific method is (bugger off Karl Popper) if applied correctly. It is difficult to design useful experiments to test behaviour for many reasons. Results obtained from animal research should not be extrapolated to the human format without judicious care.
          Psychologists who get paid for this sort of thing consider a substance addictive if it fulfils the following criteria.
          • drug use that is highly controlled or compulsive with psychoactive effects,
          • stereotypical patterns of use
          • continued use despite harmful effects, and
          • relapse following abstinence accompanied by recurrent cravings.
          Nicotine really does hit the spot.
          Hand on heart, can you honestly deny this? Before I’m jumped on by others: I’m not anti-smoking. I’m sympathetic to the smoker’s plight and deplore government interference in people’s lives and personal life choices. I live in New Zealand and the present government think they can make NZ smoke free by 2025. What do you think of the chance of this being achievable? My opinion is unprintable.

          My experience, of course, only counts as anecdotal evidence and in the great scheme of things and science, is valid only, unto me.


          • I don’t remember all the details of it, but I believe the definition of addiction was changed through the efforts of Henningfield and Benowitz about 20 years ago by adding something that specifically would make smoking “addictive by definition.”

            In terms of the four points you listed:

            • drug use that is highly controlled or compulsive with psychoactive effects,
            That would include coffee/soda/caffeine or alcohol for a good number of people

            • stereotypical patterns of use
            Again, I think coffee etc. (Although I’m not really clear on just what this is supposed to mean anyway: what’s a “stereotypical pattern of use”???)

            • continued use despite harmful effects
            Hmm…. would this mean that Heroin or methamphetamine would be less addictive if they weren’t harmful?

            • relapse following abstinence accompanied by recurrent cravings.
            Heh, chocolate would certainly fit this bill for many dieters.

            Flaxen, I think that in general addictions are highly personalized and usually have a strong psychological component that is often underplayed. I was far more “addicted” to tobacco as a teenager than I am today many years later. Why? Because the sensation was newer to me and more enjoyable, and because the opportunity to engage in it had many more limitations.

            I also think that addiction to various substances (and behaviors?) is highly individualized. I’ve drunk more than my fair share of alcohol in life, but generally drink only when I go out to a bar. If the weather’s cold or I’m busy working at home on a project I don’t particularly miss drinking. I’d say I generally go out to drink about three times a week, but I’ve only been out to drink twice since a week before Christmas: I’ve been busy, and the weather’s been cold.

            – MJM


            • Micheal, I’m pretty much in agreement with what you say. I would classify caffeine as addictive. And yes there is strong psychological and personal elements to addiction. It is hard to generalise when we are dealing with complex human behaviours. That said, I sincerely believe nicotine to be physically addictive. Classifications of addiction may change, but for me the strongest evidence relates to how hard it is for most smokers to quit.


          • Nicotine really does hit the spot.
            Hand on heart, can you honestly deny this

            Yes, I think I can, but only after a great deal of research.
            You see nicotine is not unique to tobacco but anti-tobacco thought it was and they never seem to have looked for anything else as an explanation just chose the only plant chemical they had heard of, probably through it’s long use as a general pesticide. Now we’ve had the mass human experiments since NRT became available over the counter it doesn’t seem to be working, if it was addictive it would work.

            There definitely is something about smoking, but having read the recent studies and experiments I am now leaning heavily towards two of the combustion gases which in low doses do exactly what tobacco itself was once supposed to do.

            As a child I knew that the same things that were in the tobacco plant where in the nightshade vegetables too just in smaller amounts. All that lying about the manufacturers putting road tar in cigarettes is what eventually led me to take up smoking in the first place. I wanted to find out why they were lying, smoking seemed such a pointless practice.

            But that was long ago and until now it wasn’t really possible to do the research properly. Thanks to the internet I can now read the science from my chair with a cup of coffee. I always knew where to look for the evidence but it would have ment searching through an awful lot of libraries and to what point? I never troubled anti-tobacco until anti-tobacco until anti-tobacco troubled me.

            What I’m really worried about is that they have gone down to “no safe level” now and that does endanger our food.


          • No objection from me. Discussion of smoking related things is welcome here. However, do note that the boxes on these threads get narrower with each reply until they insert themselves into their own fundaments. You might want to start a new thread now and then 🙂


  7. I’m still waiting to see the stores filled with c*H*ick-o-let gum! Candy-flavored chewing gum in exciting colored packages, filled with varying dosages of high grade heroin to help heroin addicts quit their nasty habits!

    They’d probably be quite popular at schools during anti-drug education events too!



  8. Apparently, acetaldehyde in tobacco is also addictive and acts synergistically with nicotine. Acetaldehyde is also a break down product of alcohol. Could this in any way be associated with the anecdotal observation that smokers often smoke more when they drink?

    Hey, I’ve discovered an antidote to ‘thin comment’ syndrome.


    • I certainly used to smoke more during those quick fire conversations in the pub that lasted all night, alcohol doesn’t suit me and pub lemonade was vile, but it was necessary for lubrication when you are chatting.

      It turns out that I may have been cheating a little.

      Your Brain Boots Up Like a Computer

      “As we yawn and open our eyes in the morning, the brain stem sends little puffs of nitric oxide to another part of the brain, the thalamus, which then directs it elsewhere.

      Like a computer booting up its operating system before running more complicated programs, the nitric oxide triggers certain functions that set the stage for more complex brain operations, according to a new study.”

      There’s lots more on the subject, the discoveries have been coming in thick and fast these past few years.

      We became “addicts” because of huge wrangle in 1994, Kessler then head of the FDA wanted to regulate nicotine and he could only do that if it was deemed an addictive drug. In order to do so , they had to redefine the traditional meaning of addiction by taking out the previously important “intoxication”

      Thus paving the way to do the same with sugar, salt and fat and compulsive watching of soap operas on TV.

      New Scientist did an excellent piece explaining it at the time, the Nicotine Addiction Hypothesis people won at the time, but it was not without tremendous scientific opposition.


  9. US ruling turns smokers into junkies – 1994
    13 August 1994 by KURT KLEINER

    “Nicotine is addictive, a panel of experts on drug abuse decided last week. The decision leaves the door open for the US Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco as it does other addictive substances.

    Over the past few months, the FDA’s commissioner, David Kessler, has been campaigning for tobacco to be regulated in the same way as many other drugs.

    To do so legally, he must demonstrate that nicotine is a powerful drug, and that the tobacco companies depend on nicotine’s addict-iveness to keep smokers smoking.
    But the tobacco companies continue to insist that nicotine is not addictive. To settle the issue, Kessler asked the Drug Abuse Advisory Committee to give its expert opinion.

    “The drug abuse panel listened to a whole range of definitions of addiction. But the debate highlighted some important questions. What makes a substance addictive? What is the difference between an addiction and a habit? Has the term ‘addiction’ become meaningless?

    In 1988, the US Surgeon General concluded in a report on tobacco that nicotine is addictive in the fullest sense of the word. It is psychoactive, having a direct effect on the brain; it is reinforcing, meaning that users will keep using the drug; it is used compulsively despite harmful effects. The desire to smoke takes precedence over other important priorities, such as health, and smokers become physically dependent on nicotine.

    Despite this, a handful of scientists – inside and outside the tobacco companies – claim the Surgeon General stretched the traditional meaning of addiction too far. They claim his report adds to the growing abuse of the word as in pop psychology’s ‘food addiction’ and ‘sex addiction’.

    ‘The smoker’s ability to think or reason clearly is not diminished when making the decision to quit or continue smoking. In short, this is clearly not a behaviour that the smoker has lost control over.’

    “He points out that until the 1960s, most definitions of addictive substances included the intoxicating effect.
    He said that this part of the definition should still apply, and as nicotine in normal doses is not intoxicating, it should not be considered addictive.

    Some scientists outside the tobacco companies agree. For instance, Robert Cancro, head of the Department of Psychiatry at the New York University Medical School, claims that ‘addiction’ has become ‘a modern shibboleth’. ‘A person who seeks pleasure from smoking . . . is different from a person ‘strung out’ on drugs.
    The former may enjoy the activity and pursue it; but the latter will reshape his life to obtain the drug,’ he said.

    Robert Cloninger, professor of psychiatry at Washington University in St Louis, also rejects the notion that nicotine is addictive. He does not believe it causes loss of control over behaviour or physical dependence”

    But scientists on the winning side of the debate last week claim the critics misunderstand or misrepresent what constitutes an addiction.

    ‘Tobacco representatives seem to focus in on one element of any definition. They say nicotine cannot be addicting because it does not cause intoxication.
    But that’s only one of the things that goes into an overall definition,’ said Richard Hurt, director of the Mayo Nicotine Dependence Center in Rochester, Minnesota.

    Jack Henningfield, chief of the clinical pharmacology branch at the National Institute on Drug Abuse Addiction Research Center, points out that in high enough doses nicotine can be intoxicating, while very low doses of drugs such as heroin and cocaine may not be intoxicating.

    Henningfield also rejects most of the other alleged differences between nicotine and other drugs. For instance, the fact that many people can quit nicotine does not prove that it is not addictive, as people do give up other addictive drugs.
    And the fact that smokers do not turn to crime to feed their addiction has more to do with the ready supply of cigarettes than a lack of addictiveness, Henningfield says.

    Comparing smoking to eating chocolate or other compulsive behaviours misses the point says Henningfield. ‘Of course you can see compulsive behaviours for anything.

    Drug addiction requires a certain kind of chemical to act on the brain. The chemical activity in the brain reduces the freedom of choice whether to use that drug or not.’


    • Thank you Rose! You are an utter marvel of information! And the article by Mr. Kleiner seems to do a good job of presenting both sides.

      I found this interesting at the end: “Drug addiction requires a certain kind of chemical to act on the brain. The chemical activity in the brain reduces the freedom of choice whether to use that drug or not.”

      The definition seems a bit circular. It’s more or less saying, “Drug addiction requires a certain kind of chemical (i.e., an addictive drug) to act on the brain. The chemical activity (i.e., what we define as addictiveness) in the brain reduces the freedom of choice whether to use that drug or not (i.e., addiction).”

      The article was written twenty years ago. I believe that modern brain activity imaging techniques have shown far more similarity between the effects of nicotine and the effects of things like eating chocolate or perhaps even watching soap operas than was thought to exist back then.

      I noted some thoughts about addiction a bit earlier, but I’d like to add one more: I’d say one of the most important indicators of true addiction (for the word to be meaningful) is a detrimental physically measurable reaction to the withdrawal of the addictive element. By that measure I believe the barbiturates and alcohol may hold star title: sudden withdrawal in some people in either case can, I believe, be immediately life-threatening.

      – MJM


    • Ahh! I *knew* I had another thought I wanted to tag on here! One of the things that has always fascinated me about Antismokers’ psychology is their penchant for “Doublethink,” i.e. being able to hold fundamentally incompatible or contradictory concepts in their heads at the same time without difficulty.

      Nicotine as an addictive drug is one of their problem areas in this regard as we see from their approach to “curing the disease” (or was it an addiction?) of smoking: supplying nicotine in alternate forms as I parody in my suggestion of heroin chewing gum being handed out at schools. Another is their general belief/recognition that nicotine itself is not that harmful compared to other tobacco/tobacco-combustion chemicals and their similar belief that smokers supposedly titrate (adjust) their use to maintain certain levels of nicotine, YET they are currently strongly against any sort of informative labeling that might help smokers maintain those levels with minimal side-effects by choosing higher-nicotine products. (Of course twenty years ago they were busy REQUIRING such statements, but consistency has never, ever, been their strong suit.)

      At one point I believe the UK actually applied taxation as a social engineering technique to prod smokers toward lower nicotine products that would encourage them to smoke more and provide the government with more tax money. Am I correct in that memory?

      – MJM


      • At one point I believe the UK actually applied taxation as a social engineering technique to prod smokers toward lower nicotine products

        A Battle That Can Be Won. – Speech to the First Worldwide Conference on Smoking and Health – 1967
        page 9

        “And that is why I will introduce a third bill tomorrow to establish a sliding scale tax on cigarettes.

        The current rate–$4 per 1,000 cigarettes Would remain on cigarettes with less than 10 milligrams of tar and 8 milligrams of nicotine, Others would he taxed at higher rates, with a rate of $I5 per thousand imposed on cigarettes with more than 30 milligrams of tar or 1.6 milligrams of nicotine.

        The Roswell Park figures show that 18 brands would fall in this category, as would most of the 100 millimeter cigarettes–new since the Roswell Park study was released.

        This legislation would speed the development of low tar, low nicotine cigarettes, and enable the public to spot the more dangerous cigarettes by their higher prices.”

        Senator Robert F. Kennedy.”


        • Heh, raising the tax from 8 cents a pack to 12 cents a pack. Those were the days, eh?

          That *could* be what I’m thinking of, but I was fairly sure that it was something from the UK and that the time period was in the late 80s to mid-90s.

          – MJM


        • I’m afraid that this is the best I’ve got on low tar.


          “Wynder called for voluntary action within three years to reach the current sales weighted average of 18.4 mg. tar and 1.27 mg. nicotine.
          As “further inducement”, he proposed that all cigarettes below 12 mg. tar and 0.8 mg. nicotine could be labeled as “light”.
          Wynder said “the greatest progress both qualitatively and quantitatively, will come through, the managerial process.”

          “Dr. Wynder felt that regulatory action should cover the entire spectrum of smoking dependent diseases and that if the 1974 average tar and nicotine contents of cigarettes (18.4 milligrams,and 1.27 milligrams respectively) are acceptable to the majority of smokers, there is no reason they should not be acceptable to all smokers.

          The labeling of cigarettes with a precise tar and nicotine content may not be specifically clear to the consumer, and a qualitative label of °light” may be allocated for all cigarettes below 12 milligrams of tar and 0.8 milligrams of nicotine, hoping that the consumer would find a more immediate signal for his choice.

          Dr. Wynder also reminded the group that in the long run it would be necessary to look for quantitative as well as qualitative changes, with the kind of research that is now being conducted by the Tobacco Working Group and the Smoking and Health Programme in the National Cancer Institute.

          Dr. Wynder also voiced strong concern that legislative attempts at cigarette regulation would have little chance of being approved ,and expressed his favor for recommendations to encourage voluntary regulation by the cigarette industry.”

          Much, much later ..

          U.S. tobacco companies’ appeal to delay court-ordered advertising blitz

          “One of the proposed ads begins: “A federal court has ruled that the defendant tobacco companies deliberately deceived the American public by falsely selling and advertising low tar and light cigarettes as less harmful than regular cigarettes.”
          http: //

          Release on tar and nicotine reduction in 1975 by various anti-tobacco people.
          http: //
          If you can get tobacco documents to work.


          • 1974: ““Wynder called for voluntary action within three years to reach the current sales weighted average of 18.4 mg. tar and 1.27 mg. nicotine.”

            It just occurred to me that any “sales weighted averages” of that type being done today would be ENORMOUSLY skewed by the amount of RYO smoking that has been brought about by government taxation policies (At least here in the US, where the difference can be incredible: $15 for a “carton”‘s worth of RYO at the cheaper end vs. $100+ for a carton of commercial cigs in some states.)

            Unfortunately RYO tobacco, although it’s supposedly offered in lighter and more full bodied (or whatever euphemism they’re currently trying to get away with ) brands, has no real indication of what tar/nicotine levels it might offer. It’s like going out to buy liquor and finding everything sold in mason jars with unidentifiable names and no indication of how much actual alcohol may be in any particular jar other than guessing on the basis of the colors of the lids.



First comments are moderated to keep the spambots out. Once your first comment is approved, you're in.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s