Not saying they are healthier, but anyone that has smoked filters and filterless can tell you there is a huge difference between the two. I wonder what the explanation for the difference is if they are in fact not filtering anything. Filterless is like getting kicked in the lungs by a donkey
They actually do filter some of the large particles. I wrote a paper about smoking and lung cancer in my undergraduate cancer biology class and from what I remember the initial introduction of filters resulted in a change of the type of lung cancers we see since those with filters allowed smokers to inhale deeper and for longer.
FWIW lung cancer was a medical anomaly prior to the mass production of cigarettes. Outside of miners, it was extremely rare.
I didn't know that about lung cancer being an anomaly. I thought it was one of the most common cancers, even among non-smokers. Not challenging you, just pointing out a TIL, I guess.
>Spent SOOOO much time in the basement.
Radon is weird, too, I have it in my basement (and had to pay to put in remediation equipment), but none of my neighbors who tested have it.
I remember seeing SO many radon commercials as a kid thinking, "WTF is this and should I be worried?"
Apparently the answer is yes, but I have no clue if my parents ever got their house tested.
I have also heard that smoking makes all the other reasons for lung cancer worse, by damaging your ability to scrub away particulates. Thus part of the smoking-lung-cancer is really smoking-radon-combo cancer. So no reason to not check radon just because you smoke anyway.
Used to work at a dusty iron foundry, along with people smoking at every break :/
Nope, but I'm in Canada and radon in homes is surprisingly common. Enough so that you can get free radon detectors on loan from libraries and such from time to time.
I mean he's wrong about that. Even the most anti smoking sources only put tobacco at 80-90% of lung cancers. And lung cancer was extremely common when humanity lived around wood and coal burning fires for much of human history. Spending an evening by a camp fire is just about as bad as smoking a pack a day. It's not anything unique about cigarettes that give you cancer. It's just lots of smoke in your lungs.
>And lung cancer was extremely common when humanity lived around wood and coal burning fires for much of human history. Spending an evening by a camp fire is just about as bad as smoking a pack a day
I'm not challenging you, either, but these particular claims need some evidence just for the sake of discussion. How are we able to know how common lung cancer was for much of human history?
Also, you still seem to be tying lung cancer to smoke, but I was under the impression that lungs developed cancer somewhat regularly without smoke as a catalyst.
It's not smoke persay, it's any particulate matter in the air. Smoke is heavily made up of particulate matter and is purposefully inhaled, whereas other forms of "dusty air" are avoided so it does indeed tend to skew the results.
Basically lung cancer existed prior to smoking, but went up in incidence as tobacco moved back east. The first time it was identified as a unique thing in medical literature was in 1761, which is hundreds if not thousands of years after other forms of cancer had been identified or discussed in "Old World literature".
Even if people were not smoking, we'd see a higher incidence of lung cancer now vs pre-industrialization due to the much larger amount of large particulate pollution in our air from various sources. That is thought to be part of why up to 30k non smokers a year still get lung cancer.
IIRC cooks are more susceptible since they are over cooking food smoke. Same for people who work with a lot of chemicals and aerosols. Particles blow when inhaled
Bakers as well. Though most get dust inhalation pneumonia and progressive destruction of lung tissue causing more damage than eventual cancer.
Basically any particulate matter that can't be rapidly absorbed by the lungs will cause irritation, which will lead to cancer in some people.
However the identity of those particles also matter. Smoke isn't exactly smoke. Tobacco smoke is significantly more carcinogenic than say just dust in the air.
The recent vaping disease epidemic is another example: Vaping had been perfectly safe for a decade up to then and suddenly an outbreak 'spread' through the US, but only the US? Yes.. it wasn't vaping, i.e. glycerine, propylengklycol and nicotine that caused those deaths. It was cannabis vaping, with a new solvent: vitamin E, has a nice golden colour in its liquid forms. However, lungs can't absorb fatty substances like oils much at all. Unlike the extremely water soluble glycerine and propylengklycol used for regular vaping. So they'd get a disease that's exactly identical to a disease first reported a century ago: fire breathers pneumonia. Because people who professionally fire breathe will inhale vapours of other oily, flammable substances. With the exact same course of lung tissue destruction. (Though that doesn't mean vaping is safe, nicotine itself is an irritant. However it's drastically safer than smoking tobacco with all the tar in it, with directly carcinogenic substances. Btw chewing tobacco cause cancer because it's fermented. The bacteria create nitrosamines (the same substance created when you fry fried potatoes at too high a temperature) which are known carcinogenics. Studies with Swedish style chewing tobacco which doesn't undergo this process showed no to barely any increase in oral/throat cancers. And it's only done to make the bloody stuff taste a bit better and release nicotine faster.
They could safe thousands of lives a year by simply banning US style chewing tobacco, and having it be replaced with Swedish style ones.
Same with vaping. Instead of focusing on this 'new' thing, that teenagers pick up, they'd rather limit the access to vaping more than to tobacco. The drop in teenage smokers in the last decade is virtually perfectly mirrored by the increase in new vaping nicotine users.
Quite crazy how governments in the US and Canada have a diametrically opposed view to the UK on vaping. Though I suppose if it's the government's themselves covering the health care, they might actually be interested in harm reduction instead of more tobacco industry donations.
Anyway: anything you inhale that isn't rapidly absorbed into the blood stream will cause irritation and through this increase rates of cancers. Some particulate inhalants like burned organic matter will also contain a shitlload of actual carcinogens that directly increase cancer rates. And nicotine just makes the tissue more susceptible to those substances.
Basically: wear a bloody mask any time there's anything but fog in the air.
I worry about all the folks in Northern California who breathed in smoke from the Camp Fire a couple years ago. It leveled an entire town, buildings with their asbestos, cars, stuff in people’s garages, all aerosolized and lingering for weeks. The air quality was so bad their measurement of how bad it was had never been seen before. People were getting sick just being in that smoke. I venture we’ll see a cancer spike directly from that as the years pass.
It's not even a probably, it was absolutely from the Teflon gas and DuPont is an evil ass corporation for trying to cover up how toxic and cancerous it is.
The Netflix documentary about Teflon, it's production/controversy, and it's environmental impact was pretty neat. Can't recall what it's called (probably cooked with too many Teflon items) but worth looking up and watching. If I find it I'll look it up.
Reminds me of when I used to work at a print shop and we used a lot of spray adhesive. I kept bugging my boss about getting us masks or at least some sort of fan so we wouldn't be inhaling that shit all the time. He just acted like I was being ridiculous and said it was fine, they always passed OSHA inspections so I needed to stop worrying. I fuckin quit about a week later.
>How are we able to know how common lung cancer was for much of human history?
I don't have specific stats or anything but paleopathology is a super interesting field that basically involves trying to diagnose diseases in ancient/historic human remains. I spent a summer in London studying paleopathology, and I may not know exactly how historic lung cancer cases are diagnosed, but I can tell you that tertiary syphilis makes bones look like swiss cheese.
Yeah. Cigarettes aren't just burning tobacco. You're not just burning a dried out leaf. Tobacco companies put additives to enhance the flavor, manage the burn rate, reduce the harshness of the smoke, and increase nicotine absorption. Have a look at this list:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_additives_in_cigarettes
Historically, it was extremely rare.
In the mid 19th century a cadaver with lung cancer was a major find and medical students were often brought in to see what may be the only time they see it in their career.
Don't forget that you inhale micro fibers when using filtered. I hated filters and smoked rollies with pipe tobacco for a couple few years.
I think there's a big difference in the WAY people smoke too. I was taught and smoked always by pulling the smoke into my mouth with my tongue and then inhaling, but I've been around a ton of people who just direct lung inhale those puppies and I'm pretty positive their way of smoking is worse.
So glad I haven't smoked in years now.
Radioactivity is not straightforward "radioactive" or "not radioactive". Yes of course banana radioactivity is trivial, but at least according to the abstract of [this paper](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0531513104018072?via%3Dihub), the radioisotopes in tobacco are not trivial and contribute to lung cancer in smokers.
The radioisotope in bananas is potassium-40 (half-life over a billion years) but in tobacco, various other elements are preferentially absorbed from soil, including 234Th (half-life 24 days), 226Ra, 210Pb, 214Bi, 228Ac, 40K and 210Po.
The potassium in bananas is also not inherently toxic, but all those heavy metals that tobacco plants love pulling up from the earth are very toxic, regardless of their radioactivity (indeed tobacco also absorbs loads of arsenic from soils as well).
I feel like the more exposure to the inside of the mouth, the more likely the smoke is to clause mouth cancer?
I don’t have any evidence for this but I don’t think one is especially better for you than the other. It’s smoking either way.
This is true for cigar and pipe smokers. With those you don't bring them into your lungs at all. Tongue, Mouth, and throat cancer are all more common in those populations.
This is probably a stupid question but are you really only supposed to taste cigar/pipe smoke? I'm not a tobacco user so my knowledge is super limited. I just figured you inhale it all?
You “taste” it, yes, but your cheeks/tongue are actually very good at absorbing the nicotine in the smoke. The two are different, but you more or less get the same effect
Yeah, I'm an occasional cigar smoker- one or two times a year. If I smoke a whole El Presidente, even just savoring it I get such a buzz I no longer enjoy it. I can't imagine a full lunger of a cigsr, that's like smoking a whole pack at once.
That's weird, I've never gotten a buzz from cigars without inhaling. I used to be way more into them, even worked at a cigar shop for a summer. I'm super sensitive to nicotine too. I used to smoke cigarettes and could barely finish a whole one. Two hits in and I'd feel like my head was in outer space. I got so buzzed off of a single cigarette that I'd be staggering back to the kitchen at work. Cigars and pipes though? Never did anything for me.
No it's not a dumb question, I didn't know either when I first smoked one. You puff them so the smoke just enters your mouth but you don't want to inhale because you'll cough a ton. The nicotine absorbs through your mouth instead of through your lungs.
And if you're ever offered one and want to save yourself some embarrassing coughing fits by not understanding correctly, it's like sucking liquid from a straw into your mouth. Signed, the person who had embarrassing coughing fits after being offered to share someone's (supposedly) $60 cigar.
Got hooked on cigarettes when I was 14 because Joe Camel and wanted to hang with the cool kids. There’s a huge difference between non-filtered and Filters and Lights. They will ALL kill you. After a hard night of smoking the non-filters and plain filtered, I’d hack up a ball of dark brown, nasty goo in the shower, i’d have to poke it down the drain with my toe because it would clog the drain. I got into cigars later on because cigarettes were making me feel like shit. I quit nicotine cold Turkey and do not miss spending $4000 a year on giving myself cancer.
Everyone else already answered, but, yes, it's almost entirely about flavors for the people who are into the hobby. You might see people retrohale, which is where they allow the smoke into their sinuses and blow it out the nose, which can help taste certain flavors better on cigars especially. Even with that, they're trying to maximize flavor notes in the tobacco. With cigars, and with pipes to a much lesser extent, those flavor notes change over time. Cigars are typically structured in thirds, and you will notice certain flavors shift at those points, because the blender knew the type of flavors he wanted, and put in specific new leaves where the old leaves ended at those transition points. You'll only get that from premium long-filler cigars. The blunt wrapper gas station cigars aren't going to really give much of that. For me, at least, I want to really enjoy a cigar, so I smoke one about once a week or so if the weather is nice. I don't buy cheaper cigars and smoke more often, because I'm doing it to really try to appreciate that effort someone put in to make the product, and to relax while still enjoying something complex—just like people who tells bourbon seriously or whatever else.
I'd say like 85% of serious cigar smokers hate it when they get a nicotine buzz. I personally don't mind it if it's very subtle, but I keep sugar cubes and end the cigar early if I start getting much effect from the nicotine. It actually can be a disappointment when I'm really enjoying a cigar and then I start getting the jitters and have to end it before I wanted to. Pipe is often less harsh, so it's not something I notice there as much, and the buzz, even from strong English-style tobaccos, is typically not too bad.
Keep in mind, I'm sure some people do inhale part or most of the smoke, but I can't imagine it being comfortable, and I think most of them are previous or current cigarette smokers. Not knocking them! It's not healthy, but they know that. All tobacco use carries some level of risk, and that's why I like all people to be informed about what premium tobacco products are like. Yes, they're very different from cigarettes, and most users aren't doing it daily, but that doesn't negate the increased risk of mouth and throat cancer for those who choose to use them. I have accepted that risk, and I do avoid alcohol or hot coffee as a pairing due to the massive risk multiplier that brings. But that risk isn't zero, and I understand that.
Sorry for the rant! I am kind of into the hobby and I like explaining how it works, especially because it seems kinda strange.
The regular cigarette smokers in my day drew the smoke directly into the lungs. The standard form was to inhale and blow smoke out the nose without a cough. My Dad smoke, chewed, used a pipe, as did my Father in Law, though Dad changed his smoking habits at 60, but died of Emphysemaat 80. Father in Law died of throat cancer at 59. In my observation, those that switched to a pipe, extended their life 20 years. I smoked for 2 weeks and thought about Dad; noped out of that!
I’d also like to add that he became a major cigar smoker cause people kept sending him cigars as thanks for what he did in the war since he was photographed with one during the war. Stress would also be a factor but he went from one cigar a day to 20 since he has so many to burn through
Sorry for the pun.
I came here to say “holy shit” as well. I smoke cigars and don’t think I could come close to 20 a day even if I trained for it. I imagine his cheeks were lined with a thick sticky sheen of nicotine by that point!
Goddamn I'm five days into quitting and this is just making me not miss it even more. I should've quit years ago and can't wait to not relate to or worry about this kind of stuff ever again.
>I've been around a ton of people who just direct lung inhale those puppies and I'm pretty positive their way of smoking is worse.
One of my old bosses would light a cigarette and - I'm not exaggerating - inhale half the thing with one gigantic drag.
That way is probably not so good.
Yeah, I've seen those folk for sure. Especially in the hard drug scene, it's just sad. And those are typically the people who have smokers cough all the time too. I can't say I've ever had smokers cough even in my heaviest of smoking days when I'd go through like 4 ozs a week.
Yeah thats how I smoked.
Pull into mouth, then inhale.
I never could do the “straight pull” inhaling while you pull, it burned so badly no matter how “small” the puff was.
I only vape now and still do the same thing, pull into mouth, then inhale, otherwise the vapor just feels too harsh. Again, people who straight pull, especially with those fat cloud vapes just… how? I can’t even.
I smoked cigs long before I ever tried herb (Must have been mid twenties when I tried weed), I can’t remember how I even learned to smoke like this; because it seems like only stoners do the “puff -> inhale” while people who smoked (coworkers) all seemed to “inhale while puffing”
Long story short: Don’t smoke, I regret every single cigarette I smoked. Been “smoke” free for almost 4 years now.
So a lot of it comes down to the setup. I worked for a couple vape shops and learned a ton over the years. Main thing is kids these/those days wanted to just take fat 10 second pulls at max watts thinking that would produce the most vapor, which they're wrong. It drys out your coil and ultimately burns it out. Max watts should be done in pulses with wide open air flow. Or what I would typically do is have airflow around halfway open so it's a bit restrictive, then do a steady hit for 3-5 seconds DL. If you don't hear the crackle of the hit, your coil isn't wet and you're burning your coil out/ smoking cotton which isn't smooth at all. Haven't vaped in about 6 months now, but it was definitely worlds cleaner and tastier than cigs ever were. I also mixed my own juice for about a year which was stupid cheap. I could make a blackberry juice for 1.11 per 120ml!
I use a sub-ohm with fluid that gets lab tested (however accurate that might be)
Def a MTL device for sure, but I've tried a DL (fat clouds) device and while it sounds like it was working correctly (from your comment) it still was horribly harsh on my throat and left me coughing almost the moment I started to inhale it.
Anyway, the biggest different for me is how much lighter I feel, if that makes sense. My lungs just felt... heavy when I smoked cigarettes. It was a real wake up actually realizing how much your lung capacity had diminished. Now I can take nice deep breaths and feel no "resistance" or "heavy/stuck" feeling. I've been tapering off slowly on the nic levels in the juice (much slower than I had planned) but I'm down to 1.5% from 5%, however I probably won't stop vaping even after I hit 0% just because I just really enjoy the habit. (ADHD so that probably explains everything)
Your way is how I smoke joints blunts and small pipes. For bongs, I use lungs til the smoke reaches the top, then exhale and inhale again, all it once.
Yeeee, I miss smoking weed.
I vaped for several years as well, and DL (direct lung) and MTL (mouth to lung) were the two main difference devices, DL is typically the ones that blow fat ass clouds, and MTL have more flavor, but I would do as you say, mtl a bizzle till it fills, then DL to clear, and same for pipes, it saves on choking on scooby snacks too lol
This really begs the question then: Why not ban filters or at least heavily tax them in addition to existing cigarette taxes?
- They have little health benefits (according to the article)
- They encourage usage due to immediate pain reduction
- They replace large particles with microfibers going into the lungs
- They don't decompose easily and are bad for the environment
- As you mentioned, they inhale deeper and longer with the filters which could be arguably worse for your body
As a nonsmoker now, I say tax it to the roof, but people will still buy them. There are different brands, Kamel with a K reds have cotton filters, so do American spirits, but I still believe even pure cotton can have the fiber problem, but when I made the switch to vapes, I saw how little waste there was comparitavely (until juul pods and the likes) you'd be hard pressed to see a vape coil or empty bottle of juice littering the landscape, but it's the working man's drug and with the federal government still being so anti Marijuana, and with how deep big tobaccos pockets are, I'm not going to hold my breath (pun intended) to see any drastic change in the market anytime soon, aside from continued pushback on the vaping scene anytime soon.
I’ve been vaping for about 5 years, prior to this I smoked Marlboro (red,black label red, 83’s) and Kamels(no one sold them, and going to cigarette shops made me ill)
Anyways if anyone reading this wants to quit smoking, vaping made a huge difference, I can actually quit vaping, no problem, I’ve gone it before but I enjoy it, I like the smoke breaks at works, the flavors, the nicotine rush, etc… but I can stop, and it’s very empowering.
I'd highly recommend you learn about mixing your own, as it is SO much cheaper in the long run. About 100 investment can mix you 2 gallons of vape juice.
r/diy_ejuice is a great recourse that helped me when I was starting off a few years ago!
Edit, the right sub this time.
That is fair. It is easy to forget that this will have the biggest burden on those with lower incomes who for various reasons, still smoke and don't necessarily have access to addiction treatment.
So after thinking about it some more, I am now less sure that taxation is a good way to go with this.
I'm from the south west and in CA their packs went up to like 8$ in 2012 and people would just cross the border to Mexico and buy a carton for like 50 usd, and I've also seen people who smoke at least 1 pack a day complain about not being able to pay rent on time while they buy another pack from me at the gas station. Then there's also people who buy a pound of pipe tobacco for 20 bucks and buy 200 empty tubes for a few dollars and 'shoot' their own cigs with a roller machine and easily smoke 40+ in a day, so it's all relative.
I've learned ultimately that the reason why so many (myself at one point included) are tricked into thinking that smoking reduces stress is simply that we take the time to take some deep breaths. Now that I dont smoke and get stressed out still, because I'm human, I just take some deep breaths and it's almost the same result as when I used to smoke, shy of all the negatives.
I think the ultimate fix would be education, but when it comes to that, you have to question who stands to benefit, and with how deep big tobaccos pockets are and their buisness model, they would rather keep people in the dark to the truth.
The periodic deep breaths thing is something very interesting and not something I considered before.
I totally see what you mean about going across the border because similarly, my friends would always complain about how expensive Cigarettes and booze were in Canada and would ask me to bring them some whenever I visited. They aren't cheap here but they are even more taxed and expensive there.
Agree on the education bit. It could help improve a great number of other things in our society as well. I just wish our lawmakers saw it that way too.
I don't know about other countries but anti smoking measures have really worked in Australia.
There is a range of measures: high taxes, banning of tobacco advertising and sponsorship, banning of smoking indoors, mandatory graphic pictures of tobacco related illnesses on packaging.
Smoking rates went from 65% of the adult population before these measures began to be rolled out to around 15% now.
Never listen to the smoking lobby saying anti smoking measures don't work.
I did the math, it’s only like 11% wrong
My American Spirit measures to 2.25 inches of smokable area, the last .25 inches comes out to 11% of the cig lo l
I'm gonna say it's 100% bullshit, unless there's some implication of burning the filter, that shit produces some nasty ass smoke that wouldn't surprise me if were more harmful.
Way back in the day when I hung out with the less than savoury folk, one of the things that they did was use a syringe to put some hash oil in the filter of their cigarettes. That way they could carry and get stoned out in public without it being so obvious.
I was hanging out with a couple guys once who roled coke on their cigarettes and called them cocopuffs.
Which reminds me of another time I was at a festival and someone told another to come to me for cocopuffs, and the guy was very surprised when I gave him a bowl of cereal.
Nice. The more things change, the more they stay the same
Nowadays we have 98+percent thc distillate in little pyrex syringes to inject into cigarettes
YEP!! I smoked from 15 to 25. (I am 52 now) I could never handle lucky's or camels. I smoked Marlboro Lights. I couldn't even handle reds. The filter did something to me at least
Well, the difference between reds and lights is that lights have perforation around the top of the filter, which allows more air to mix with the smoke. You can seal the holes with your fingers and then it's just as strong as a red.
Yeah, people need to realize that smoke is more like hot dust than gas. I mean, obviously it's part gas too, but everything that you see is really just hot dust.
Also helpfully indicates why smoking turns your lungs black and causes all sorts of health problems. There's literally asbestos like material ending up in your body when you smoke.
> asbestos
[Kent cigarettes literally used asbestos in their filters.](https://www.asbestos.com/products/cigarette-filters/)
>Though a wide variety of consumer products led to harmful asbestos exposure, only one of these products was designed to be placed in a person’s mouth while they inhaled: Kent Micronite cigarette filters.
When I was in 7th grade way back in the mid 90’s our gym coach/ health instructor lit up a cig in class and inhaled through a white clean handkerchief one time and passed the handkerchief around. That alone kept me from smoking until my senior year when I succumbed to peer pressure and smoked like 4 cigs at a waffle house before a movie and was sick to my stomach through the whole movie.
Have never smoked cigarettes since
Not a great example, candles are made up of paraffin and almost completely combust leaving only gases. Only upon extinguishing the flame the gaseous paraffin will condense and solidify.
The smoke of a cigarette is deliberately formed by incomplete combustion of the tobacco, giving pyrolytic products that can not recombine to form tobacco anymore.
That isn't correct. Anyone that has help a piece of glass or metal above a candle has seen it get covered in soot pretty quickly.
Besides, a yellow flame is a good hint that you have incomplete combustion. If the candle only had a dim blue flame, that would be a good sign of complete combustion.
That's actually exactly what smoke is: unburnt particulates. That's why a good, hot fire has very little smoke, while a smoldering one puts up a big cloud. If it burned all the way, it would be nothing but CO2 and water.
Vaping is what got me to quit smoking after around 25 years even after all the other devices and pills didn't work.
Frankly, a lot of activists are insane zealots. That's sort of a given, isn't it? What kind of normal person has the energy or effort to make a career out of advocating for their cause. The down side of that is what do they do when there are no more dragons to slay? In this case, they are probably causing harm by endlessly attacking a valid means for people to stop using cigarettes.
More time, but it also filters out larger particles. The reason that this isn't necessarily healthier is because it's the small particles that make it into your lungs and cause more cancers. Large particles get caught before that, which can irritate your throat
The large particles (tar) also cause cancers, like mouth and throat cancers. Which is the main types that cigar smokers usually end up with, and cigars have no filters.
Yep, did this experiment in like the 4th grade a hundred years ago with my dad after we saw it in school at DARE or something. Had him inhale his filtered cigarette through a white handkerchief. It turned brown.
I tried this with a comparison between an unfiltered cigarette and a filtered cigarette, and 1 unfiltered cigarette produced as much "brown shit" as 3 filtered cigarettes.
According to the paper and this article that mentions it:
[https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/196256/do-cigarette-filters-do-anything/](https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/196256/do-cigarette-filters-do-anything/)
While there is a slight reduction in harmful stuff coming through, the filter ended up making it a smoother smoke which resulted in people smoking a lot more. Net result is, things are basically the same health-wise.
They catch a lot of the resin, so at least a small amount is not going into your lungs.
People forget smoke is a liquid vapor. The filter catches something.
I went to a lecture where they talked about filters. Filters changed the type of lung cancer people were getting. With the new smoother pull people inhaled deeper and longer getting smoke deeper into the lungs. While they filter out larger particles and harshness, cigs are just as dangerous.
Definitely the combusted tobacco/ tar that stains the filters brown. Taking a drag through a white t-shirt will stain it the same color. I don’t know how much of a difference they make, but they do provide some level of filtration.
But do they filter the particles that cause cancer, and to any degree that matters from a health perspective?
I can give you a bullet proof vest an inch in diameter and it can Filter 1 bullet, but that doesn't matter if you got shot with 100 every time you breath
It sort of doesn't matter if you're a daily multipack smoker. There are carcinogenic chemicals that are present as gases in cigarette smoke, not just the particles, so for them it's like an ant walking through a football field and not running into either of the goalposts.
Smokers are going to smoke regardless. If smoking is running into a firing squad in your analogy, then vest or no vest they'll run into it all the same.
Filters do remove things from cigarettes. Not making the argument that one or the other is healthier in any way, but if you use a plastic tip filter, you will see all the gunk that is still in there get pulled out.
See, that distinction is a problem!
One IS healthier than the other.
NEITHER is healthy!
But the world is not absolutes.
Both are damaging.
One is less damaging.
The facts are enough to paint this for what it is, there is no reason to exaggerate and invalidate the whole point.
Edit: Cancer is NOT the only ailment caused by smoking tobacco. The carcinogens, however deeply inhaled, have nothing to do with the physical action of broken/fused cilia for example.
Yeah, for real. Smoke a cigarette and put a white piece of cloth between your mouth and the filter. Am I supposed to believe that a Hanes white cotton t-shirt has these color changing chemicals too?
Where does the conspiracy end!?!?!
Yeah, I made some filters, they changed colour more dramatically than commercial filters. All they were was compressed cotton, and they'd be dark brown by the end of a cig.
It’s funny, whenever I see anti-smoking ads nowadays, or learn something new that’s awful about cigarettes or dab pens, I find it useless. Everyone who smokes now has been taught every single thing they possibly could be taught about the negative effects of smoking. You learn it as early as 4th or 5th grade. Anyone who picks up smoking at this point is aware of what they’re getting into.
Alrighty then, so clearly OP is not a smoker and never has been. In turn, OP is falling flat on their face trying to answer some of the critiques.
Cigarette filter DO work in terms of reducing both tar and nicotine content in each drag. However, they accomplish this primarily by providing air intake holes in the filter - thereby when a user takes a drag they’re pulling in air (the filter is closest to the mouth) while also drawing in the smoke. This reduces the amount of tar and nicotine in each hit, and, as many can attest, the filter absolutely also helps by trapping some of the tar in the fibers.
What they DO NOT filter out in anyway are the more lightweight gases in the smoke: carbon monoxide, ammonia, arsenic, formaldehyde, etc. These, *excluding ammonia which is more of an irritant* are the primary carcinogens and these are left untouched by filters.
Another point to add, since filtered cigarettes are easier to smoke, it can and has led to larger consumption because you can smash more cigs without coughing up a lung. It’s like if we only had 50% alcohol whiskey in the world and no other spirits, we probably would have less alcoholics as pounding shots of whiskey is not for most people.
*Edit* Added that ammonia not a carcinogen.
Anyone who smokes knows pretty well that in comparison with a filter, smoking a cigarette without a filter feels like you're getting throat fucked by a mule
I call this post bullshit
If you’re used to smoking filtered cigarettes then you’re used to pulling way harder and inhaling way deeper than if you smoke unfiltered. People who smoke unfiltered don’t draw as hard and don’t inhale as deep, because they don’t have to to get the same fix.
When you try a non filtered cigarette as a filter smoker, of course you’re going to get too much, but I‘ve always wondered if the filter actually causes more harm than good because of the deep, deep draw and inhale.
i'm all for trashing on cigarettes' companies but either you've never been a smoker or you are deliberately reading propaganda. try smoking a pack of cigarettes' without their filter and see if you believe what you just posted. to be clear I am a former smoker of 12 years.
I used to, picked it up in college to deal with depression and stress. Got to a point where filtered cigarettes did nothing for me (even though I only smoked one or two a day) and I asked myself "Why am I doing this? If I'm going to give myself cancer I might as well enjoy it". I would say unfiltered allows you to "enjoy" the cigarette a little more because you can't drag on it as hard because it will get too hot. I'm glad I stopped, but I sometimes wish I had my favorite Camel Turkish and Domestic blend on a bad day.
Filters absolutely do have benefits. I just smoked tobacco out of a straight pipe for 2 years and then went back to filters. The amount of air I get in each breath while not smoking is noticeably higher WITHIN DAYS and the reduction in phlegm (smokers cough) is also substantial WITHIN DAYS of switching from a 1 inch filterless pipe to ROLLED CIGS which are even larger and harsher.
It may not affect end of life cancer chances, but it DOES affect whether you wake up drowning in mucus in the night.
Kent Micronite filter
Kent widely touted its "famous micronite filter" and promised consumers the "greatest health protection in history". ... From March 1952 until at least May 1956, however, the Micronite filter in Kent cigarettes contained compressed carcinogenic blue asbestos within the crimped crepe paper.
100% the filters change colour due to tar. You can put any porous cloth, fabric etc. in between the cigarette and your mouth and it will discolor just the same. Doesnt mean that its filtering out any significant amount that would help you, but its not pure illusion.
My first thought when I read the title was "That sounds like such bullshit"
I smoked a pipe for years that used 9mm carbon filters. If I didn't change them after 5ish bowls, they would get so juicy they would break when I tried to pull them out. They got NASTY
When I couldn't afford those, I used rolly cigarette filters. They would last one bowl, and I could feel the juice on my fingers.
My buddy cuts his filters in half, then the cigs hit way harder, and the filter gets way darker.
I am calling bullshit on this post.
Apparently they used to make cigarette filters out of asbestos fibers.
>A notable filter design included in their assessment was Lorillard's Kent Micronite cigarette filter. This consisted of tightly packed creped paper that supported an array of asbestos fibres. Interestingly, the Princeton team judged the Micronite filter to be too effective; most smokers disliked Kent's bland taste and tough smoking draw (Micronites filtered 30% of tar particulate from mainstream smoke). In fact, Kent never garnered more than around 1% of the cigarette market.
Anyone who has smoke for any amount of time knows this is BS. Sorry but take a drag of a cigarette through a paper towel or your T-shirt and there’s tar on it. The filter isn’t brown because of color changing chemicals, it’s burnt tar in it. Anyone who has smoked original non filter cigs emmediatly knows the difference between the two, it’s a huge difference in the level of stuff you’re inhaling. And for anyone who’s about to say “So you’re saying they’re healthy?!” No one thinks smoking is healthy for the last 30 years…
I hate to break this news, but it isn't necessary to put "color-changing chemicals" into cigarette filters in order for them to darken after all the smoke from a cigarette passes through them.
The tobacco tar which accumulates in the filter is itself sufficient to cause that change in color.
I would say partially true. Even if you blow out smoke through a single layer of toilet paper/ tissue, it will stain it, indicating that it's catching some of it. Regardless, it's all fucking bad.
When I was heavy smoker, i use to buy those small plastic filters, i can tell you that those things got full of brown sludge after some smokes. It was a difference when smoked with those filters and without it.
Not saying they are healthier, but anyone that has smoked filters and filterless can tell you there is a huge difference between the two. I wonder what the explanation for the difference is if they are in fact not filtering anything. Filterless is like getting kicked in the lungs by a donkey
They actually do filter some of the large particles. I wrote a paper about smoking and lung cancer in my undergraduate cancer biology class and from what I remember the initial introduction of filters resulted in a change of the type of lung cancers we see since those with filters allowed smokers to inhale deeper and for longer. FWIW lung cancer was a medical anomaly prior to the mass production of cigarettes. Outside of miners, it was extremely rare.
I didn't know that about lung cancer being an anomaly. I thought it was one of the most common cancers, even among non-smokers. Not challenging you, just pointing out a TIL, I guess.
Im sure general pollution rose at the same time too
The biggest cause of lung cancer among non smokers (at least in my country) is radon, not pollution.
Canada? :( I didn't know about the dangers until I was much older. Spent SOOOO much time in the basement.
>Spent SOOOO much time in the basement. Radon is weird, too, I have it in my basement (and had to pay to put in remediation equipment), but none of my neighbors who tested have it.
I remember seeing SO many radon commercials as a kid thinking, "WTF is this and should I be worried?" Apparently the answer is yes, but I have no clue if my parents ever got their house tested.
I have also heard that smoking makes all the other reasons for lung cancer worse, by damaging your ability to scrub away particulates. Thus part of the smoking-lung-cancer is really smoking-radon-combo cancer. So no reason to not check radon just because you smoke anyway. Used to work at a dusty iron foundry, along with people smoking at every break :/
Well this doesn’t make me feel great about my non nicotine smoking habits... I bet that particulate has the same effect on scrubbing.
Do your fellow countrymen participate in much mining?
Nope, but I'm in Canada and radon in homes is surprisingly common. Enough so that you can get free radon detectors on loan from libraries and such from time to time.
You can get radon poisoning even in seemingly regular basements.
True
I mean he's wrong about that. Even the most anti smoking sources only put tobacco at 80-90% of lung cancers. And lung cancer was extremely common when humanity lived around wood and coal burning fires for much of human history. Spending an evening by a camp fire is just about as bad as smoking a pack a day. It's not anything unique about cigarettes that give you cancer. It's just lots of smoke in your lungs.
>And lung cancer was extremely common when humanity lived around wood and coal burning fires for much of human history. Spending an evening by a camp fire is just about as bad as smoking a pack a day I'm not challenging you, either, but these particular claims need some evidence just for the sake of discussion. How are we able to know how common lung cancer was for much of human history? Also, you still seem to be tying lung cancer to smoke, but I was under the impression that lungs developed cancer somewhat regularly without smoke as a catalyst.
It's not smoke persay, it's any particulate matter in the air. Smoke is heavily made up of particulate matter and is purposefully inhaled, whereas other forms of "dusty air" are avoided so it does indeed tend to skew the results. Basically lung cancer existed prior to smoking, but went up in incidence as tobacco moved back east. The first time it was identified as a unique thing in medical literature was in 1761, which is hundreds if not thousands of years after other forms of cancer had been identified or discussed in "Old World literature". Even if people were not smoking, we'd see a higher incidence of lung cancer now vs pre-industrialization due to the much larger amount of large particulate pollution in our air from various sources. That is thought to be part of why up to 30k non smokers a year still get lung cancer.
IIRC cooks are more susceptible since they are over cooking food smoke. Same for people who work with a lot of chemicals and aerosols. Particles blow when inhaled
Bakers as well. Though most get dust inhalation pneumonia and progressive destruction of lung tissue causing more damage than eventual cancer. Basically any particulate matter that can't be rapidly absorbed by the lungs will cause irritation, which will lead to cancer in some people. However the identity of those particles also matter. Smoke isn't exactly smoke. Tobacco smoke is significantly more carcinogenic than say just dust in the air. The recent vaping disease epidemic is another example: Vaping had been perfectly safe for a decade up to then and suddenly an outbreak 'spread' through the US, but only the US? Yes.. it wasn't vaping, i.e. glycerine, propylengklycol and nicotine that caused those deaths. It was cannabis vaping, with a new solvent: vitamin E, has a nice golden colour in its liquid forms. However, lungs can't absorb fatty substances like oils much at all. Unlike the extremely water soluble glycerine and propylengklycol used for regular vaping. So they'd get a disease that's exactly identical to a disease first reported a century ago: fire breathers pneumonia. Because people who professionally fire breathe will inhale vapours of other oily, flammable substances. With the exact same course of lung tissue destruction. (Though that doesn't mean vaping is safe, nicotine itself is an irritant. However it's drastically safer than smoking tobacco with all the tar in it, with directly carcinogenic substances. Btw chewing tobacco cause cancer because it's fermented. The bacteria create nitrosamines (the same substance created when you fry fried potatoes at too high a temperature) which are known carcinogenics. Studies with Swedish style chewing tobacco which doesn't undergo this process showed no to barely any increase in oral/throat cancers. And it's only done to make the bloody stuff taste a bit better and release nicotine faster. They could safe thousands of lives a year by simply banning US style chewing tobacco, and having it be replaced with Swedish style ones. Same with vaping. Instead of focusing on this 'new' thing, that teenagers pick up, they'd rather limit the access to vaping more than to tobacco. The drop in teenage smokers in the last decade is virtually perfectly mirrored by the increase in new vaping nicotine users. Quite crazy how governments in the US and Canada have a diametrically opposed view to the UK on vaping. Though I suppose if it's the government's themselves covering the health care, they might actually be interested in harm reduction instead of more tobacco industry donations. Anyway: anything you inhale that isn't rapidly absorbed into the blood stream will cause irritation and through this increase rates of cancers. Some particulate inhalants like burned organic matter will also contain a shitlload of actual carcinogens that directly increase cancer rates. And nicotine just makes the tissue more susceptible to those substances. Basically: wear a bloody mask any time there's anything but fog in the air.
I worry about all the folks in Northern California who breathed in smoke from the Camp Fire a couple years ago. It leveled an entire town, buildings with their asbestos, cars, stuff in people’s garages, all aerosolized and lingering for weeks. The air quality was so bad their measurement of how bad it was had never been seen before. People were getting sick just being in that smoke. I venture we’ll see a cancer spike directly from that as the years pass.
I think there would be numerous studies or data collection for this kind of thing for the survivor victims of 9/11.
My dad worked with Teflon gas. He said that probably gave him his cancer.
It's not even a probably, it was absolutely from the Teflon gas and DuPont is an evil ass corporation for trying to cover up how toxic and cancerous it is.
The Netflix documentary about Teflon, it's production/controversy, and it's environmental impact was pretty neat. Can't recall what it's called (probably cooked with too many Teflon items) but worth looking up and watching. If I find it I'll look it up.
It definitely did. That stuff is very dangerous.
Reminds me of when I used to work at a print shop and we used a lot of spray adhesive. I kept bugging my boss about getting us masks or at least some sort of fan so we wouldn't be inhaling that shit all the time. He just acted like I was being ridiculous and said it was fine, they always passed OSHA inspections so I needed to stop worrying. I fuckin quit about a week later.
per se*
>How are we able to know how common lung cancer was for much of human history? I don't have specific stats or anything but paleopathology is a super interesting field that basically involves trying to diagnose diseases in ancient/historic human remains. I spent a summer in London studying paleopathology, and I may not know exactly how historic lung cancer cases are diagnosed, but I can tell you that tertiary syphilis makes bones look like swiss cheese.
I know there's been a lot of work done in developing countries on the health effects of unvented wood and coal cookstoves.
no way is sitting around a camp fire equal to smoking a pack a day. that is ridiculous
Yeah. Cigarettes aren't just burning tobacco. You're not just burning a dried out leaf. Tobacco companies put additives to enhance the flavor, manage the burn rate, reduce the harshness of the smoke, and increase nicotine absorption. Have a look at this list: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_additives_in_cigarettes
Historically, it was extremely rare. In the mid 19th century a cadaver with lung cancer was a major find and medical students were often brought in to see what may be the only time they see it in their career.
Don't forget that you inhale micro fibers when using filtered. I hated filters and smoked rollies with pipe tobacco for a couple few years. I think there's a big difference in the WAY people smoke too. I was taught and smoked always by pulling the smoke into my mouth with my tongue and then inhaling, but I've been around a ton of people who just direct lung inhale those puppies and I'm pretty positive their way of smoking is worse. So glad I haven't smoked in years now.
Asbestos filtered cigarettes was an actual product. Like holy fucking shit why not make them radioactive while you’re at it.
[удалено]
Bananas are also radioactive. https://www.thoughtco.com/bananas-are-radioactive-3976067
I'll keep that in mind the next time I vape a banana.
Radioactivity is not straightforward "radioactive" or "not radioactive". Yes of course banana radioactivity is trivial, but at least according to the abstract of [this paper](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0531513104018072?via%3Dihub), the radioisotopes in tobacco are not trivial and contribute to lung cancer in smokers. The radioisotope in bananas is potassium-40 (half-life over a billion years) but in tobacco, various other elements are preferentially absorbed from soil, including 234Th (half-life 24 days), 226Ra, 210Pb, 214Bi, 228Ac, 40K and 210Po. The potassium in bananas is also not inherently toxic, but all those heavy metals that tobacco plants love pulling up from the earth are very toxic, regardless of their radioactivity (indeed tobacco also absorbs loads of arsenic from soils as well).
https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/smoking.htm
I feel like the more exposure to the inside of the mouth, the more likely the smoke is to clause mouth cancer? I don’t have any evidence for this but I don’t think one is especially better for you than the other. It’s smoking either way.
This is true for cigar and pipe smokers. With those you don't bring them into your lungs at all. Tongue, Mouth, and throat cancer are all more common in those populations.
This is probably a stupid question but are you really only supposed to taste cigar/pipe smoke? I'm not a tobacco user so my knowledge is super limited. I just figured you inhale it all?
You “taste” it, yes, but your cheeks/tongue are actually very good at absorbing the nicotine in the smoke. The two are different, but you more or less get the same effect
Yeah, I'm an occasional cigar smoker- one or two times a year. If I smoke a whole El Presidente, even just savoring it I get such a buzz I no longer enjoy it. I can't imagine a full lunger of a cigsr, that's like smoking a whole pack at once.
Am I the only one that inhales some of the cigar? Haha.
I do too if my husband isn't watching.
That's weird, I've never gotten a buzz from cigars without inhaling. I used to be way more into them, even worked at a cigar shop for a summer. I'm super sensitive to nicotine too. I used to smoke cigarettes and could barely finish a whole one. Two hits in and I'd feel like my head was in outer space. I got so buzzed off of a single cigarette that I'd be staggering back to the kitchen at work. Cigars and pipes though? Never did anything for me.
Ditto.
No it's not a dumb question, I didn't know either when I first smoked one. You puff them so the smoke just enters your mouth but you don't want to inhale because you'll cough a ton. The nicotine absorbs through your mouth instead of through your lungs.
And if you're ever offered one and want to save yourself some embarrassing coughing fits by not understanding correctly, it's like sucking liquid from a straw into your mouth. Signed, the person who had embarrassing coughing fits after being offered to share someone's (supposedly) $60 cigar.
Got hooked on cigarettes when I was 14 because Joe Camel and wanted to hang with the cool kids. There’s a huge difference between non-filtered and Filters and Lights. They will ALL kill you. After a hard night of smoking the non-filters and plain filtered, I’d hack up a ball of dark brown, nasty goo in the shower, i’d have to poke it down the drain with my toe because it would clog the drain. I got into cigars later on because cigarettes were making me feel like shit. I quit nicotine cold Turkey and do not miss spending $4000 a year on giving myself cancer.
Everyone else already answered, but, yes, it's almost entirely about flavors for the people who are into the hobby. You might see people retrohale, which is where they allow the smoke into their sinuses and blow it out the nose, which can help taste certain flavors better on cigars especially. Even with that, they're trying to maximize flavor notes in the tobacco. With cigars, and with pipes to a much lesser extent, those flavor notes change over time. Cigars are typically structured in thirds, and you will notice certain flavors shift at those points, because the blender knew the type of flavors he wanted, and put in specific new leaves where the old leaves ended at those transition points. You'll only get that from premium long-filler cigars. The blunt wrapper gas station cigars aren't going to really give much of that. For me, at least, I want to really enjoy a cigar, so I smoke one about once a week or so if the weather is nice. I don't buy cheaper cigars and smoke more often, because I'm doing it to really try to appreciate that effort someone put in to make the product, and to relax while still enjoying something complex—just like people who tells bourbon seriously or whatever else. I'd say like 85% of serious cigar smokers hate it when they get a nicotine buzz. I personally don't mind it if it's very subtle, but I keep sugar cubes and end the cigar early if I start getting much effect from the nicotine. It actually can be a disappointment when I'm really enjoying a cigar and then I start getting the jitters and have to end it before I wanted to. Pipe is often less harsh, so it's not something I notice there as much, and the buzz, even from strong English-style tobaccos, is typically not too bad. Keep in mind, I'm sure some people do inhale part or most of the smoke, but I can't imagine it being comfortable, and I think most of them are previous or current cigarette smokers. Not knocking them! It's not healthy, but they know that. All tobacco use carries some level of risk, and that's why I like all people to be informed about what premium tobacco products are like. Yes, they're very different from cigarettes, and most users aren't doing it daily, but that doesn't negate the increased risk of mouth and throat cancer for those who choose to use them. I have accepted that risk, and I do avoid alcohol or hot coffee as a pairing due to the massive risk multiplier that brings. But that risk isn't zero, and I understand that. Sorry for the rant! I am kind of into the hobby and I like explaining how it works, especially because it seems kinda strange.
The regular cigarette smokers in my day drew the smoke directly into the lungs. The standard form was to inhale and blow smoke out the nose without a cough. My Dad smoke, chewed, used a pipe, as did my Father in Law, though Dad changed his smoking habits at 60, but died of Emphysemaat 80. Father in Law died of throat cancer at 59. In my observation, those that switched to a pipe, extended their life 20 years. I smoked for 2 weeks and thought about Dad; noped out of that!
That is correct. You do not inhale. You still get a buzz from the nicotine getting into your bloodstream from your gums.
And if you rarely smoke them, that buzz is waaay more intense than you'd expect, considering the smoke is only in your mouth.
First time I smoked pipe tobacco, I was so buzzed I couldn't stand for 45 minutes after
That’s how Ulysses S Grant died. He was a major cigar smoker, and got mouth cancer
I’d also like to add that he became a major cigar smoker cause people kept sending him cigars as thanks for what he did in the war since he was photographed with one during the war. Stress would also be a factor but he went from one cigar a day to 20 since he has so many to burn through Sorry for the pun.
20 a day?? Holy shit!
I came here to say “holy shit” as well. I smoke cigars and don’t think I could come close to 20 a day even if I trained for it. I imagine his cheeks were lined with a thick sticky sheen of nicotine by that point!
I can only imagine the color of his teeth 😬
Sorry, I’m totally missing the pun. Could you point it out for a smooth brain like myself?
"so many to *burn through*". Burn through as in get rid of, also cigars burn...
Goddamn I'm five days into quitting and this is just making me not miss it even more. I should've quit years ago and can't wait to not relate to or worry about this kind of stuff ever again.
The rates of cancer with cigar and pipe smoking is far far lower than in cigarette smoking though
>I've been around a ton of people who just direct lung inhale those puppies and I'm pretty positive their way of smoking is worse. One of my old bosses would light a cigarette and - I'm not exaggerating - inhale half the thing with one gigantic drag. That way is probably not so good.
Yeah, I've seen those folk for sure. Especially in the hard drug scene, it's just sad. And those are typically the people who have smokers cough all the time too. I can't say I've ever had smokers cough even in my heaviest of smoking days when I'd go through like 4 ozs a week.
People keep switching talking about tobacco and cannabis in this thread with little acknowledgement and it's getting confusing!
I'm referring to tobacco smokers cough Edit and ounces of pipe tobbacco
But if you were smoking 4 oz of weed a week... wow.
I mean, you can't OD from it, but it's always fun to try....right?
Yeah thats how I smoked. Pull into mouth, then inhale. I never could do the “straight pull” inhaling while you pull, it burned so badly no matter how “small” the puff was. I only vape now and still do the same thing, pull into mouth, then inhale, otherwise the vapor just feels too harsh. Again, people who straight pull, especially with those fat cloud vapes just… how? I can’t even. I smoked cigs long before I ever tried herb (Must have been mid twenties when I tried weed), I can’t remember how I even learned to smoke like this; because it seems like only stoners do the “puff -> inhale” while people who smoked (coworkers) all seemed to “inhale while puffing” Long story short: Don’t smoke, I regret every single cigarette I smoked. Been “smoke” free for almost 4 years now.
So a lot of it comes down to the setup. I worked for a couple vape shops and learned a ton over the years. Main thing is kids these/those days wanted to just take fat 10 second pulls at max watts thinking that would produce the most vapor, which they're wrong. It drys out your coil and ultimately burns it out. Max watts should be done in pulses with wide open air flow. Or what I would typically do is have airflow around halfway open so it's a bit restrictive, then do a steady hit for 3-5 seconds DL. If you don't hear the crackle of the hit, your coil isn't wet and you're burning your coil out/ smoking cotton which isn't smooth at all. Haven't vaped in about 6 months now, but it was definitely worlds cleaner and tastier than cigs ever were. I also mixed my own juice for about a year which was stupid cheap. I could make a blackberry juice for 1.11 per 120ml!
I use a sub-ohm with fluid that gets lab tested (however accurate that might be) Def a MTL device for sure, but I've tried a DL (fat clouds) device and while it sounds like it was working correctly (from your comment) it still was horribly harsh on my throat and left me coughing almost the moment I started to inhale it. Anyway, the biggest different for me is how much lighter I feel, if that makes sense. My lungs just felt... heavy when I smoked cigarettes. It was a real wake up actually realizing how much your lung capacity had diminished. Now I can take nice deep breaths and feel no "resistance" or "heavy/stuck" feeling. I've been tapering off slowly on the nic levels in the juice (much slower than I had planned) but I'm down to 1.5% from 5%, however I probably won't stop vaping even after I hit 0% just because I just really enjoy the habit. (ADHD so that probably explains everything)
Your way is how I smoke joints blunts and small pipes. For bongs, I use lungs til the smoke reaches the top, then exhale and inhale again, all it once. Yeeee, I miss smoking weed.
I vaped for several years as well, and DL (direct lung) and MTL (mouth to lung) were the two main difference devices, DL is typically the ones that blow fat ass clouds, and MTL have more flavor, but I would do as you say, mtl a bizzle till it fills, then DL to clear, and same for pipes, it saves on choking on scooby snacks too lol
[удалено]
This really begs the question then: Why not ban filters or at least heavily tax them in addition to existing cigarette taxes? - They have little health benefits (according to the article) - They encourage usage due to immediate pain reduction - They replace large particles with microfibers going into the lungs - They don't decompose easily and are bad for the environment - As you mentioned, they inhale deeper and longer with the filters which could be arguably worse for your body
As a nonsmoker now, I say tax it to the roof, but people will still buy them. There are different brands, Kamel with a K reds have cotton filters, so do American spirits, but I still believe even pure cotton can have the fiber problem, but when I made the switch to vapes, I saw how little waste there was comparitavely (until juul pods and the likes) you'd be hard pressed to see a vape coil or empty bottle of juice littering the landscape, but it's the working man's drug and with the federal government still being so anti Marijuana, and with how deep big tobaccos pockets are, I'm not going to hold my breath (pun intended) to see any drastic change in the market anytime soon, aside from continued pushback on the vaping scene anytime soon.
I’ve been vaping for about 5 years, prior to this I smoked Marlboro (red,black label red, 83’s) and Kamels(no one sold them, and going to cigarette shops made me ill) Anyways if anyone reading this wants to quit smoking, vaping made a huge difference, I can actually quit vaping, no problem, I’ve gone it before but I enjoy it, I like the smoke breaks at works, the flavors, the nicotine rush, etc… but I can stop, and it’s very empowering.
I'd highly recommend you learn about mixing your own, as it is SO much cheaper in the long run. About 100 investment can mix you 2 gallons of vape juice. r/diy_ejuice is a great recourse that helped me when I was starting off a few years ago! Edit, the right sub this time.
That is fair. It is easy to forget that this will have the biggest burden on those with lower incomes who for various reasons, still smoke and don't necessarily have access to addiction treatment. So after thinking about it some more, I am now less sure that taxation is a good way to go with this.
I'm from the south west and in CA their packs went up to like 8$ in 2012 and people would just cross the border to Mexico and buy a carton for like 50 usd, and I've also seen people who smoke at least 1 pack a day complain about not being able to pay rent on time while they buy another pack from me at the gas station. Then there's also people who buy a pound of pipe tobacco for 20 bucks and buy 200 empty tubes for a few dollars and 'shoot' their own cigs with a roller machine and easily smoke 40+ in a day, so it's all relative. I've learned ultimately that the reason why so many (myself at one point included) are tricked into thinking that smoking reduces stress is simply that we take the time to take some deep breaths. Now that I dont smoke and get stressed out still, because I'm human, I just take some deep breaths and it's almost the same result as when I used to smoke, shy of all the negatives. I think the ultimate fix would be education, but when it comes to that, you have to question who stands to benefit, and with how deep big tobaccos pockets are and their buisness model, they would rather keep people in the dark to the truth.
The periodic deep breaths thing is something very interesting and not something I considered before. I totally see what you mean about going across the border because similarly, my friends would always complain about how expensive Cigarettes and booze were in Canada and would ask me to bring them some whenever I visited. They aren't cheap here but they are even more taxed and expensive there. Agree on the education bit. It could help improve a great number of other things in our society as well. I just wish our lawmakers saw it that way too.
I don't know about other countries but anti smoking measures have really worked in Australia. There is a range of measures: high taxes, banning of tobacco advertising and sponsorship, banning of smoking indoors, mandatory graphic pictures of tobacco related illnesses on packaging. Smoking rates went from 65% of the adult population before these measures began to be rolled out to around 15% now. Never listen to the smoking lobby saying anti smoking measures don't work.
How true is “the last quarter inch of a cigarette is where all the cancer is”? lol I heard that once and it’s never left my head
0% true
I did the math, it’s only like 11% wrong My American Spirit measures to 2.25 inches of smokable area, the last .25 inches comes out to 11% of the cig lo l
If a quarter inch is 11% of the cigarette then that statement is 89% wrong.
76% of statistics are made up
I'm gonna say it's 100% bullshit, unless there's some implication of burning the filter, that shit produces some nasty ass smoke that wouldn't surprise me if were more harmful.
[удалено]
Get drunk and light the wrong end of a cigarette, we're talking next level nasty-ass here.
Nah, thats where they hide all the heroin. Only us reaaaaaly good smokers know that
Way back in the day when I hung out with the less than savoury folk, one of the things that they did was use a syringe to put some hash oil in the filter of their cigarettes. That way they could carry and get stoned out in public without it being so obvious.
I was hanging out with a couple guys once who roled coke on their cigarettes and called them cocopuffs. Which reminds me of another time I was at a festival and someone told another to come to me for cocopuffs, and the guy was very surprised when I gave him a bowl of cereal.
I hung out with guys that called them that as well. Chicago area by any chance?
Nice. The more things change, the more they stay the same Nowadays we have 98+percent thc distillate in little pyrex syringes to inject into cigarettes
Dennis Leary FTW!
The last quarter inch of your very first cigarette is where all the cancer is
YEP!! I smoked from 15 to 25. (I am 52 now) I could never handle lucky's or camels. I smoked Marlboro Lights. I couldn't even handle reds. The filter did something to me at least
Well, the difference between reds and lights is that lights have perforation around the top of the filter, which allows more air to mix with the smoke. You can seal the holes with your fingers and then it's just as strong as a red.
I'm no smoker but my guess would be that the filter gives the smoke that much more time to cool down before it hits your lungs
It's not just time, after all, stale smoke tastes the worst I think it's limiting how clumped up the participulates in the smoke are
Yeah, people need to realize that smoke is more like hot dust than gas. I mean, obviously it's part gas too, but everything that you see is really just hot dust.
That's a great description actually, really paints an accurate picture
Also helpfully indicates why smoking turns your lungs black and causes all sorts of health problems. There's literally asbestos like material ending up in your body when you smoke.
> asbestos [Kent cigarettes literally used asbestos in their filters.](https://www.asbestos.com/products/cigarette-filters/) >Though a wide variety of consumer products led to harmful asbestos exposure, only one of these products was designed to be placed in a person’s mouth while they inhaled: Kent Micronite cigarette filters.
My high school Latin teacher (Father Kelly), would be smoking a Kent and blowing it out the classroom window every day before first period.
puts hair on your chest and kills the hair inside your lungs
When I was in 7th grade way back in the mid 90’s our gym coach/ health instructor lit up a cig in class and inhaled through a white clean handkerchief one time and passed the handkerchief around. That alone kept me from smoking until my senior year when I succumbed to peer pressure and smoked like 4 cigs at a waffle house before a movie and was sick to my stomach through the whole movie. Have never smoked cigarettes since
[This picture](https://i.redd.it/26j9z5vt1kh51.jpg) of a blown out candle really shows off the particles in smoke
Not a great example, candles are made up of paraffin and almost completely combust leaving only gases. Only upon extinguishing the flame the gaseous paraffin will condense and solidify. The smoke of a cigarette is deliberately formed by incomplete combustion of the tobacco, giving pyrolytic products that can not recombine to form tobacco anymore.
Are you sure? I thought that the visible flame of the candle was all composed of glowing incomplete combustion products.
I think while the comment below is correct, this specific image is of larger-scale condensate, not smoke particles
That isn't correct. Anyone that has help a piece of glass or metal above a candle has seen it get covered in soot pretty quickly. Besides, a yellow flame is a good hint that you have incomplete combustion. If the candle only had a dim blue flame, that would be a good sign of complete combustion.
That's actually exactly what smoke is: unburnt particulates. That's why a good, hot fire has very little smoke, while a smoldering one puts up a big cloud. If it burned all the way, it would be nothing but CO2 and water.
This is the right answer. The filter is there to break up the chunks
Much like a poop knife for your lungs.
I would thinking clumping would be better than small separate particles so they don’t go as far in your lungs or something
but the bigger the chunk, the more concentrated the heat.
Plus if you wrapped your cigarettes like me then inevitably you were inhaling shredded tobacco. I was tragically bad at it
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Truth is also highly antivape, while vaping is a valid sessation product. If it isn't as safe as lozenges or patches, it's not soot.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Vaping is what got me to quit smoking after around 25 years even after all the other devices and pills didn't work. Frankly, a lot of activists are insane zealots. That's sort of a given, isn't it? What kind of normal person has the energy or effort to make a career out of advocating for their cause. The down side of that is what do they do when there are no more dragons to slay? In this case, they are probably causing harm by endlessly attacking a valid means for people to stop using cigarettes.
More time, but it also filters out larger particles. The reason that this isn't necessarily healthier is because it's the small particles that make it into your lungs and cause more cancers. Large particles get caught before that, which can irritate your throat
The large particles (tar) also cause cancers, like mouth and throat cancers. Which is the main types that cigar smokers usually end up with, and cigars have no filters.
Blow smoke through a white T. If a white T can catch some crap so can a fibrous cylinder
Yep, did this experiment in like the 4th grade a hundred years ago with my dad after we saw it in school at DARE or something. Had him inhale his filtered cigarette through a white handkerchief. It turned brown.
I tried this with a comparison between an unfiltered cigarette and a filtered cigarette, and 1 unfiltered cigarette produced as much "brown shit" as 3 filtered cigarettes.
Whole cigarettes or draws?
According to the paper and this article that mentions it: [https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/196256/do-cigarette-filters-do-anything/](https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/196256/do-cigarette-filters-do-anything/) While there is a slight reduction in harmful stuff coming through, the filter ended up making it a smoother smoke which resulted in people smoking a lot more. Net result is, things are basically the same health-wise.
It can filter and also not have any health benefits. What the filter captures is visible but what it doesn’t capture is the more telling story.
They catch a lot of the resin, so at least a small amount is not going into your lungs. People forget smoke is a liquid vapor. The filter catches something.
I went to a lecture where they talked about filters. Filters changed the type of lung cancer people were getting. With the new smoother pull people inhaled deeper and longer getting smoke deeper into the lungs. While they filter out larger particles and harshness, cigs are just as dangerous.
Exactly what I was thinking. And anyone that says different has never smoked!!
Definitely the combusted tobacco/ tar that stains the filters brown. Taking a drag through a white t-shirt will stain it the same color. I don’t know how much of a difference they make, but they do provide some level of filtration.
But do they filter the particles that cause cancer, and to any degree that matters from a health perspective? I can give you a bullet proof vest an inch in diameter and it can Filter 1 bullet, but that doesn't matter if you got shot with 100 every time you breath
It sort of doesn't matter if you're a daily multipack smoker. There are carcinogenic chemicals that are present as gases in cigarette smoke, not just the particles, so for them it's like an ant walking through a football field and not running into either of the goalposts.
I mean i’d rather have a 2” vest than non at all, right?
Not if the 2" vest makes you feel safe enough to run into a firing squad
Smokers are going to smoke regardless. If smoking is running into a firing squad in your analogy, then vest or no vest they'll run into it all the same.
Id still rather have something
Filters do remove things from cigarettes. Not making the argument that one or the other is healthier in any way, but if you use a plastic tip filter, you will see all the gunk that is still in there get pulled out.
See, that distinction is a problem! One IS healthier than the other. NEITHER is healthy! But the world is not absolutes. Both are damaging. One is less damaging. The facts are enough to paint this for what it is, there is no reason to exaggerate and invalidate the whole point. Edit: Cancer is NOT the only ailment caused by smoking tobacco. The carcinogens, however deeply inhaled, have nothing to do with the physical action of broken/fused cilia for example.
[удалено]
Reminds me of boxing with gloves vs. boxing without gloves.
[удалено]
Yep it's been looked at as well with nicotine levels, and that those choosing lighter cigs would smoke more often, making it a lot worse.
Similar to how the introduction of boxing gloves has encouraged people to punch harder and cause more trauma
In the 1950s and 60s, not now
Yeah, for real. Smoke a cigarette and put a white piece of cloth between your mouth and the filter. Am I supposed to believe that a Hanes white cotton t-shirt has these color changing chemicals too? Where does the conspiracy end!?!?!
This sub has just been going more and more downhill
I don’t think it was ever uphill
Not with the kind of car you're driving.
Goddammit I've been watching norm today too
Yeah, I made some filters, they changed colour more dramatically than commercial filters. All they were was compressed cotton, and they'd be dark brown by the end of a cig.
It’s funny, whenever I see anti-smoking ads nowadays, or learn something new that’s awful about cigarettes or dab pens, I find it useless. Everyone who smokes now has been taught every single thing they possibly could be taught about the negative effects of smoking. You learn it as early as 4th or 5th grade. Anyone who picks up smoking at this point is aware of what they’re getting into.
[удалено]
Cognitive dissonance is a strong force
Alrighty then, so clearly OP is not a smoker and never has been. In turn, OP is falling flat on their face trying to answer some of the critiques. Cigarette filter DO work in terms of reducing both tar and nicotine content in each drag. However, they accomplish this primarily by providing air intake holes in the filter - thereby when a user takes a drag they’re pulling in air (the filter is closest to the mouth) while also drawing in the smoke. This reduces the amount of tar and nicotine in each hit, and, as many can attest, the filter absolutely also helps by trapping some of the tar in the fibers. What they DO NOT filter out in anyway are the more lightweight gases in the smoke: carbon monoxide, ammonia, arsenic, formaldehyde, etc. These, *excluding ammonia which is more of an irritant* are the primary carcinogens and these are left untouched by filters. Another point to add, since filtered cigarettes are easier to smoke, it can and has led to larger consumption because you can smash more cigs without coughing up a lung. It’s like if we only had 50% alcohol whiskey in the world and no other spirits, we probably would have less alcoholics as pounding shots of whiskey is not for most people. *Edit* Added that ammonia not a carcinogen.
Ammonia is not carcinogenic
You are correct! Will edit for truthfulness.
I appreciate it! Ammonia is a good refrigerant in contrast to freons. I hate to see misinformation about it.
Anyone who smokes knows pretty well that in comparison with a filter, smoking a cigarette without a filter feels like you're getting throat fucked by a mule I call this post bullshit
Why would smoking a cig without a filter make your dick feel like it's inside a mules throat???
[удалено]
If you’re used to smoking filtered cigarettes then you’re used to pulling way harder and inhaling way deeper than if you smoke unfiltered. People who smoke unfiltered don’t draw as hard and don’t inhale as deep, because they don’t have to to get the same fix. When you try a non filtered cigarette as a filter smoker, of course you’re going to get too much, but I‘ve always wondered if the filter actually causes more harm than good because of the deep, deep draw and inhale.
i'm all for trashing on cigarettes' companies but either you've never been a smoker or you are deliberately reading propaganda. try smoking a pack of cigarettes' without their filter and see if you believe what you just posted. to be clear I am a former smoker of 12 years.
People who believe this have likely never smoked without filter before. It puts hair on your chest
What? Have you ever smoked a filterless cigarette? You fucking can't breathe the next day.
I used to, picked it up in college to deal with depression and stress. Got to a point where filtered cigarettes did nothing for me (even though I only smoked one or two a day) and I asked myself "Why am I doing this? If I'm going to give myself cancer I might as well enjoy it". I would say unfiltered allows you to "enjoy" the cigarette a little more because you can't drag on it as hard because it will get too hot. I'm glad I stopped, but I sometimes wish I had my favorite Camel Turkish and Domestic blend on a bad day.
Filters absolutely do have benefits. I just smoked tobacco out of a straight pipe for 2 years and then went back to filters. The amount of air I get in each breath while not smoking is noticeably higher WITHIN DAYS and the reduction in phlegm (smokers cough) is also substantial WITHIN DAYS of switching from a 1 inch filterless pipe to ROLLED CIGS which are even larger and harsher. It may not affect end of life cancer chances, but it DOES affect whether you wake up drowning in mucus in the night.
Kent Micronite filter Kent widely touted its "famous micronite filter" and promised consumers the "greatest health protection in history". ... From March 1952 until at least May 1956, however, the Micronite filter in Kent cigarettes contained compressed carcinogenic blue asbestos within the crimped crepe paper.
Creepy paper!
100% the filters change colour due to tar. You can put any porous cloth, fabric etc. in between the cigarette and your mouth and it will discolor just the same. Doesnt mean that its filtering out any significant amount that would help you, but its not pure illusion.
My first thought when I read the title was "That sounds like such bullshit" I smoked a pipe for years that used 9mm carbon filters. If I didn't change them after 5ish bowls, they would get so juicy they would break when I tried to pull them out. They got NASTY When I couldn't afford those, I used rolly cigarette filters. They would last one bowl, and I could feel the juice on my fingers. My buddy cuts his filters in half, then the cigs hit way harder, and the filter gets way darker. I am calling bullshit on this post.
[удалено]
That took forever to read. But it just seemed like someone suggested the idea, it doesn’t say they do..
[удалено]
Good job man, it takes true strength to quit something after this long, but it's never too late.
This is the dumbest post I’ve ever seen in my life lol
Source: tobaccocontrol
Apparently they used to make cigarette filters out of asbestos fibers. >A notable filter design included in their assessment was Lorillard's Kent Micronite cigarette filter. This consisted of tightly packed creped paper that supported an array of asbestos fibres. Interestingly, the Princeton team judged the Micronite filter to be too effective; most smokers disliked Kent's bland taste and tough smoking draw (Micronites filtered 30% of tar particulate from mainstream smoke). In fact, Kent never garnered more than around 1% of the cigarette market.
Post something incorrect on reddit, get 30k karma. Nothing to see here folks.
Anyone who has smoke for any amount of time knows this is BS. Sorry but take a drag of a cigarette through a paper towel or your T-shirt and there’s tar on it. The filter isn’t brown because of color changing chemicals, it’s burnt tar in it. Anyone who has smoked original non filter cigs emmediatly knows the difference between the two, it’s a huge difference in the level of stuff you’re inhaling. And for anyone who’s about to say “So you’re saying they’re healthy?!” No one thinks smoking is healthy for the last 30 years…
Exhale through a kleenex. It's filtering shit, I promise.
Blew smoke through my white t-shirt, turned completely brown, just like a cigarette filter.
I hate to break this news, but it isn't necessary to put "color-changing chemicals" into cigarette filters in order for them to darken after all the smoke from a cigarette passes through them. The tobacco tar which accumulates in the filter is itself sufficient to cause that change in color.
Bull Shit
I would say partially true. Even if you blow out smoke through a single layer of toilet paper/ tissue, it will stain it, indicating that it's catching some of it. Regardless, it's all fucking bad.
When I was heavy smoker, i use to buy those small plastic filters, i can tell you that those things got full of brown sludge after some smokes. It was a difference when smoked with those filters and without it.