Would you like a cigarette?

[Dreadnaught]

Yummmmmmm.

LIFE & CULTURE | August 31, 2012, 5:13 p.m. ET

What's Really in Your Cigarette?
Ammonia, sugars, cocoa and more. Once-secret documents reveal some surprising ingredients
By ROBERT N. PROCTOR

There are lots of myths about cigarettes: that "lights" offer protection, for one, or that filters actually filter.

Yet another myth is that cigarettes are just tobacco rolled in paper. Nothing could be further from the truth. The cigarette is a surprisingly complex artifact, as we now know from the treasure trove of documents released in the course of litigation. The tobacco archives online at legacy.library.ucsf.edu contain some 80 million pages of formerly secret industry documents, almost all of which were unavailable before the Big Tobacco trials of recent years. Access to these archives has improved over time, and all are now full-text searchable, meaning that anyone with an Internet connection can pull up all documents containing expressions such as "doubt is our product" or "friends in Congress."

What the documents also reveal is a witches' brew of ingredients used in cigarettes. A 1992 document drawn up by Covington & Burling, a leading tobacco law firm, lists 614 different additives in cigarettes. Here are some of the choicer items, along with poundages added to cigarettes in 1991:

Glycerol 24,910,166

Propylene glycol 22,803,628

Cocoa and cocoa shells 9,302,784

Licorice 8,140,074

Diammonium phosphate 6,065,511

Urea 2,376,000

Menthol 1,564,759

St. John's Bread 979,780

Chocolate 841,405

Potassium sorbate 296,984

Prune juice and concentrate 156,093

Levulinic acid 13,413

Angelica Root 5,128

Nutmeg powder and oil 2,359

Dandelion root solid extract 2,044

Twenty years later, the exact formulas of cigarettes on the market remain trade secrets, but the companies now publicly disclose the chemicals they add. On their websites, Philip Morris lists more than 100 different additives, Reynolds lists 158 and Lorillard lists 137. Many of these are flavorants; that is presumably why the list includes bergamot oil, fenugreek extract, geranium bourbon oil, ethyl vanillin, tangerine oil, sandalwood and something called "immortelle extract."

Under "c" alone we find cardamom oil, carob bean extract, cinnamon oil, coffee extract, coriander oil, corn syrup and an oil made from camomile flowers. Gone, apparently, are some that appear in earlier lists: "civet absolute," for example, which turns out to be a secretion from the anal gland of the civet cat, and castoreum, a comparable secretion from the Siberian beaver.

Some compounds are added for physiological effects. Menthol adds a cool, minty taste, for example, but also has anesthetic effects, helping starters start and smokers get a "medicinal" feeling. Sugars are added to produce a milder, more inhalable smoke—but also because, when burned, they generate acetaldehydes, boosting the addictive potency of the resulting smoke.

Nicotine per se isn't typically added, apart from what is already found in precision-bred and blended tobacco leaf, but ammonia is used in abundance—millions of pounds per year in fact—to push the nicotine molecule from a "bound" into a "free base" state, creating a kind of crack nicotine. Levulinic acid is similarly added to increase the efficiency of nicotine binding in the brain. Cocoa is added for aroma but also for its impact as a bronchodilator: Cocoa contains the alkaloid theobromine, which helps open up the lungs to "receive" smoke.

Of course, whenever you smoke a cigarette you are also smoking cigarette paper, which contains bleaches and glues and sometimes burn accelerants (typically sodium or potassium citrates). Chemicals are added to adjust the color of the ash or the optical qualities of the smoke.

The archives are also full of complaints from ordinary smokers finding oddities in their cigarettes: A 1994 Philip Morris document records contamination from rubber bands, machine belts and lubricants, ink and tax stamp solvents, glass fibers and plastics, and color stains "consistent with blood." Smokers also complain about finding bugs or worms, sometimes dead, sometimes alive.

Global consumption of cigarettes has now reached six trillion sticks a year, which turns out to be more than 300 million miles of cigarettes—enough to make a continuous chain from the Earth to the sun and back, with enough left over for a couple of side trips to Mars. On that long journey, smokers deserve to know exactly what's in their cigarettes, and why.

—Mr. Proctor is a professor of the history of science at Stanford University and the author of "Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...844991748.html

[Lewkowski]

What's the purpose of this? Anyone with a modicum of intelligence, a desire for a longer life span and any sort of willpower isn't smoking.

[GGT]

Maybe it's a rant against Big Tobacco and previous industry lobbying that kept things secret from the consumer?

Anyway, I like tobacco. My dad used to smoke a pipe, back when the only things added were flavors that smoked out as "aromas". Cherry pipe tobacco was my favorite. Similar to today's Aromatherapy that's everywhere now, even in our laundry detergents and shampoos. Scents evoke a powerful emotional reaction, and carry a long memory.

My grampa used to prefer cigars. All sorts, from big fat Cuban types that needed a tip cutter, hefty puffing, and special humidors --- to the cheap commercial tiparello kind with plastic filters. He and his cronies used to get together and smoke cigars, drink coffee or brandy by the fireplace, and discuss important things. I've always loved that literary reference and suggestion of languid pleasures.

[Loki]

http://www.quitsmokingsupport.com/cigars.htm

[GGT]

Okay? I wasn't trying to suggest that tobacco smoking has NO negative health impact, any more than I'd suggest inhaling bus exhaust has NO negative health impact.

But chemically enhanced commercial cigarettes shouldn't indict all tobacco. Especially the kind grown in Amish tobacco fields (with no chemical pesticides, herbicides, or fertilizers.) The kind that's naturally dried in tobacco barns, hand sorted and manually crushed, and doesn't contain added chemicals meant to stimulate "addictive" properties in the brain.

Inhaling almost any type of smoke or effluent can damage lungs over time. Wood burning, auto exhaust, asbestos, coal dust or mica particles. Off gassing from carpets or dry wall. Smog in general. But we don't live life wearing a HEPA or gas mask.

[Loki]

The difference being that people inhale the other things because they have to if they want to make a living. Smoking is not necessary.

[GGT]

Besides the fact that we're all "second hand smokers" -- including the pollutants and particulates from Asia that find their way into our shared global atmosphere---

I'd like to remind everyone that a totally cigarette smoke-free society would still face inhalation and respiratory diseases, often carcinogenic and/or lethal. Much of today's pediatric asthma is related to pet dander, rodent or insect feces, dust mites, food sensitivities --- as allergic responses to environmental factors. Tobacco smoke exposure hasn't been proven to be MORE important than other variables. Just ask any Olympic athlete with 'exercise-induced asthma' who's never been exposed to second-hand tobacco smoke.


Also, some of the best candle fragrances have Tobacco in their name.

[Loki]

And how is this relevant to the countless amount of people who die from first-hand smoking every year?

[GGT]

And how is this relevant to the countless amount of people who die from first-hand smoking every year?

It's not. Does that nullify my posts?

Even the ones about loving the scent of cherry pipe tobacco, or candles that hint at tobacco fragrance?

[EmperorNorton]

Cancer? In my cigarettes? It's more likely than you think.

[Loki]

It's not. Does that nullify my posts?

Even the ones about loving the scent of cherry pipe tobacco, or candles that hint at tobacco fragrance?

That depends entirely on whether it's rational to love the smell of slow, painful death.

[Nessus]

That depends entirely on whether it's rational to love the smell of slow, painful death.

Didn't Ayn Rand's rational Objectivism fetishize smoking? Anyhoo, the smell of bacon and the smell of whiskey also fulfill your criteria, or the smell of DDT, the smell of petrol, never mind all the slow, painful deaths that do not carry distinctive odours. I'm not sure what the argument here is. That people should be rational? Good luck with that, comrade!

[Loki]

Didn't Ayn Rand's rational Objectivism fetishize smoking? Anyhoo, the smell of bacon and the smell of whiskey also fulfill your criteria, or the smell of DDT, the smell of petrol, never mind all the slow, painful deaths that do not carry distinctive odours. I'm not sure what the argument here is. That people should be rational? Good luck with that, comrade!

Most of the things you mentioned if used properly and in moderation have minimal negative effects. The same isn't true for smoking. Furthermore, there's some positive use to petroleum and bacon, while smoking is entirely optional.

[Nessus]

Most of the things you mentioned if used properly and in moderation have minimal negative effects. The same isn't true for smoking. Furthermore, there's some positive use to petroleum and bacon, while smoking is entirely optional.

Quoth unca Lazarus, "moderation is for monks!"

Again, what is the argument here? I understand that in your Weltanschauung people must, a priori, be rational self-interested agents, but smoking cigarettes, eating bacon to the point of obesity and diabetes, or drinking whiskey until one's liver is fried flies right in the face of that. Eating bacon to the point of obesity and diabetes/heart failure/whatever is entirely optional, yet it seems to be very popular in, oh say the United States. Obviously both cigarette smokers and bacon enthusiasts are lambasted by society at large, yet somehow the allures of cigarettes and bacon manage to wrest youngsters from every successive generation into their irrational embrace.

Your usual stance towards politics and humanity is of utmost nihilism and hopelessness, why are you so ornery about smoking? By your expectations, shouldn't more people be smoking, given how a) dumb people are 2) how effective marketing is? And furthermore, shouldn't it be lauded that these people are removing themselves from society via their slow, painful death? Is the problem that their death is too slow? I honestly do not comprehend your umbrage here.

[Loki]

My objection was her glorification of an inherently useless and toxic substance. When people generally talk about bacon or petroleum, they don't glorify using them to the point of sickness or death. I would equally object to a loving tale of a relative intentionally becoming obese. Alcohol is more borderline, but at least it can be used in moderation without adverse side-effects (and let's be honest, if alcohol was invented today, it would be banned).

I don't think that someone who's stupid in one area must by necessity be stupid in others. Unlike certain people, I'm not a supporter of eugenics either. If people want to smoke, that's their option. Just like if people want to get suffocated to the point of death, that's their option. That doesn't preclude me from thinking that they're engaging in incredibly stupid behavior.

[Nessus]

Petrolium isn't glorified to the point of sickness and death? Gosh, news to me. Although I suppose coal is worse, so maybe you've a point there.

Admittedly I am not exposed to the advertisement barrage an average US consumer struggles with, but all the same I would not find it surprising if, in the minds of many, bacon and other assorted grease-including products aren't glorified to an unwarranted amount.

Your previous post indicated a willingness to compromise, a rarity in discussions with you, whereupon you stated it's possible to indulge in whiskey and bacon in moderation, avoiding health risks to a degree reasonable enough to justify the enjoyment found in bacon and whiskey. I do not rightly comprehend how you cannot then see how the same could apply to cigarettes; another anecdote, I apologize, but I enjoy a good cigar, yet I haven't had one in years now. How is bacon unlike those cigars?

As you say, if alcohol were invented today it would be banned for it is a ruinous substance. Yet, as both your society and mine experimented, the ban leads to more harm than good. We can keep calling abusers of tobacco, alcohol and bacon dum-dums, fatties, drunkards, what have you, yet we will keep having them. It serves little purpose other than your desire to heap invective on people to do so, but I suppose the enjoyment you derive thereof is of no lesser import than the enjoyment contained within bacon, whiskey or tobacco. If the only goal is to point fingers at stupid people, I am sure we could easily find people whose stupidity is harming vast amounts of others instead of simply themselves.

And I do find some mild amusement in your words suggesting I support eugenics, as if that were a bad thing, while gleefully supporting social darwinism yourself.

[Dreadnaught]

The point of this thread was because I have a known beef with smoking and found a nice, squishy source about how gross they are. But this is an interesting turn.

Where's Munchkin when you need her, she was one of the more pro-cigarette folks around.

[Aimless]

Cigars and various kinds of pipe-tobacco occasionally smell delicious but the smoke itself is invariably foul. I get the nostalgic/sentimental aspect. It's not Amish cigars that're killing millions every year, but inhaling that smoke into your lungs is still bad.

[Khendraja'aro]

You don't actually need those ingredients. The slow, low-temperature, low-oxygen burn creates all kinds of nastyness regardless of the organics you're burning.

Acetones, aldehydes, aromatics, cyanides, just produced on the fly. Even from burning just tobacco.

[Loki]

Petrolium isn't glorified to the point of sickness and death? Gosh, news to me. Although I suppose coal is worse, so maybe you've a point there.

Admittedly I am not exposed to the advertisement barrage an average US consumer struggles with, but all the same I would not find it surprising if, in the minds of many, bacon and other assorted grease-including products aren't glorified to an unwarranted amount.

Your previous post indicated a willingness to compromise, a rarity in discussions with you, whereupon you stated it's possible to indulge in whiskey and bacon in moderation, avoiding health risks to a degree reasonable enough to justify the enjoyment found in bacon and whiskey. I do not rightly comprehend how you cannot then see how the same could apply to cigarettes; another anecdote, I apologize, but I enjoy a good cigar, yet I haven't had one in years now. How is bacon unlike those cigars?

As you say, if alcohol were invented today it would be banned for it is a ruinous substance. Yet, as both your society and mine experimented, the ban leads to more harm than good. We can keep calling abusers of tobacco, alcohol and bacon dum-dums, fatties, drunkards, what have you, yet we will keep having them. It serves little purpose other than your desire to heap invective on people to do so, but I suppose the enjoyment you derive thereof is of no lesser import than the enjoyment contained within bacon, whiskey or tobacco. If the only goal is to point fingers at stupid people, I am sure we could easily find people whose stupidity is harming vast amounts of others instead of simply themselves.

And I do find some mild amusement in your words suggesting I support eugenics, as if that were a bad thing, while gleefully supporting social darwinism yourself.

I might be missing something, but except for the Heart Attack Burger place, I can't think of any food place saying you should eat their products until you're obese.

It's incredibly rare to find people who smoke in "moderation", especially since even "moderation" for smoking might not prevent the nasty side-effects. In GGT's story, she certainly wasn't referring to her grandfather smoking the pipe once a year. If you're going to throw invective at people who have different beliefs from you, I don't see why I shouldn't be able to disapprove of actions that have an actual direct effect on their quality of life, all with no real benefit. I don't get any enjoyment out of it; on the contrary, I wish no one smoked. I'm not a great supporter of alcohol either, by the way. I come from a part of the world where it destroys countless lives, and it has a toxic role in British and American universities. But at least most people who abuse alcohol in the latter places grow out of it; people who start smoking young generally smoke more, not less, as they get older.

And you really should stop assuming that anyone to the right of you economically believes in social darwinism. I don't think some people are genetically superior to others and the government should do little to keep alive those who are inferior. I think most people are born equal (to the extent that they can succeed in something, if not necessarily in the same thing), and it should not be government's role to encourage them to eternal subordination with benefits that incentivize them to not work or learn.

Cigars and various kinds of pipe-tobacco occasionally smell delicious but the smoke itself is invariably foul. I get the nostalgic/sentimental aspect. It's not Amish cigars that're killing millions every year, but inhaling that smoke into your lungs is still bad.

I get the nostalgic element. But GGT had to go and claim that just it's also not all that bad (you know, like everything else in the good old days where people smoked because they didn't know it was harmful, and non-whites and non-Protestants were treated as trash).

[Nessus]

No one is saying you ought smoke until you croak of cancer, either. Of course, as you well know, the producers of bacon and tobacco alike simply want as much of their product consumed as possible; no one cares whether you eat the bacon or burn it, inhale the tobacco or use it as the stuffing in your pillow, so long as you buy it, the Invisible Hand is pleased.

You say it is "incredibly rare" to find a "moderate" smoker right after I told you I am one? I abuse alcohol, and don't mind saying so, but certainly if we were looking for an anecdote of a moderate smoker, I am it. And given how easy it is to find an abuser of bacon, or alcohol, what is the argument made here?

I've never said you can't throw invective at people, or disapprove of them, I'm just trying to "help you improve your argument", as you told me so long ago. "No real benefit"? What is the real benefit in eating bacon over tree bark, drinking whiskey instead of tap water? Bacon has more nutrients than tree bark, but aside from that the only "real benefit" is the irrational enjoyment we get thanks to our irrational body chemistry. Which, by the way, is the same "real benefit" that smoking provides. (And tiny aids in dieting and other assorted minutiae which aren't really germane)

Citation needed on "people who abuse alcohol grow out of it". I'm not going to engage you on the seemingly deliberate insult of "part of the world", since as we agreed you're quite free to throw invective around.

I am not assuming you're a social darwinist because you're "to the right" of me, I'm "assuming" it because your statements clearly label you as such. If you think social darwinism has to do with genetic superiority, I don't know what to tell you, but in this case I am willing to make an assumption and that is that you are lying to propagate your argument.

[Loki]

Bacon is food. We need food to survive. There's absolutely no harm in eating a reasonable amount of bacon every day. One cigarette a day can still kill you. Just because you happen to be a casual smoker doesn't mean there are many like you. Most people who drink aren't alcoholics. Meanwhile, 40% of people who smoke go through a pack a day (http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/03/15...e/index.html); over 80% smoke every day, and they average 19 cigarettes a day (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5444a2.htm).

We'd have a society dominated by alcoholics if people binge-drank at the same rate after college as they did during college. I don't know about Finland, but I'm not aware of many people attending frat-type parties every week after they finish college. Here's some evidence: http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/153/11/1102.full

Social Darwinism does have a genetic component, and just because parts of the left today claim that anyone who doesn't want to bankrupt the state to help the poor is a believer doesn't make it true. I also don't recall at any point saying that poor or disabled people should starve to death and otherwise get no assistance from the government.

[Nessus]

Thin, watery soup with wood shavings is food. By this logic, isn't everyone not min-maxing their food intake a dum-dum? Shouldn't each and every person find out their genetic predispositions to this and that source of nourishment, and tailor their diet to suit? One slice of bacon a day can still kill you, for some values of you.

You didn't provide a citation, so I feel free to point out the concept of the "high-functioning alcoholic", who no doubt exist in the Western hemisphere, working and being job creators and all that. I'm not sure you understand what alcohol addiction entails, frankly.

Again you run to your "parts of the left". The RINO, no true scotsman and all that "otherness" fallacies aside, you agree with the Romney/Ryan campaign, do you not? You have spoken for, in the past, policies that'd reduce social mobility, have you not? Have you not straw-manned the entire argument by stating both "helping the poor will bankrupt the state" and "poors shouldn't starve to death" in a self-serving effort to frame the argument to your pleasure? For sake of clarity, treat these as yes/no questions.

[Loki]

No, because you need a certain amount of calories per day to survive. You also need a variety of nutrients.

I didn't provide a citation for what? I gave a link that showed that people drink less as they get older.

Are we doing guilt by association now? If you support candidate X, you must support every single part of his platform? And I should note, that Romney has said nothing about getting rid of most social programs, and Ryan said that he wants to cap government spending at 20% of GDP, which isn't exactly peanuts.

[Nessus]

You can get calories and nutrients from tree bark soup and vitamin supplements, why is anyone engaging in risky behaviour and ingesting bacon?

Your study seems like one where, had the outcome not supported your own views, you would be quick to point out correlation isn't causation. Nor does it seem, on a quick glance, to survey the global population (given your remark about "over here"), but this too is probably of low import.

Are we doing guilt by association? If I were, on the face of it, completely neutral on Judaism and the people thereof, yet a vocal advocate of Nazism, would you be comfortable with my views and votes when it came to Jewish questions? Similarly, if you're a vocal proponent of the GOP, what are negroids, women and faggots to make of you? Even if we assume you are utterly un-caring and neutral towards women, fags and niggers, you're still advocating for a party that's actively working against the interests of women, niggers and faggots. And for cigarettes, potentially, given mr. Ryan's quantum affections with Randroidism.

[Loki]

Vitamin supplements cost money, quite possibly more than bacon. And do we know for certain that they're as effective as the real thing?

I know that I've lived in college towns and non-college towns, and the amount of drinking in the former is several levels of magnitude higher.

Without knowing any extra information, it might be reasonable to assume that you wouldn't be very friendly toward Jews. But assumptions aren't conclusions. They're best avoided if there's evidence that allows you to do so. A sizable portion of GOP voters do not share antipathy toward those groups, which means assuming that a given voter does isn't even a good assumption.

[Flixy]

Fast food chains.don't promote overeating the way cigarette brands label them as lethal and telling you to quit on the package

[Loki]

I would be concerned if someone was glorifying overeating food as well.

[Nessus]

Have you seen what they can do with an electron cannon and some lead glass?

[GGT]

My objection was her glorification of an inherently useless and toxic substance. When people generally talk about bacon or petroleum, they don't glorify using them to the point of sickness or death. I would equally object to a loving tale of a relative intentionally becoming obese. Alcohol is more borderline, but at least it can be used in moderation without adverse side-effects (and let's be honest, if alcohol was invented today, it would be banned).

I don't think that someone who's stupid in one area must by necessity be stupid in others. Unlike certain people, I'm not a supporter of eugenics either. If people want to smoke, that's their option. Just like if people want to get suffocated to the point of death, that's their option. That doesn't preclude me from thinking that they're engaging in incredibly stupid behavior.

WTF? My anecdotes weren't glorifying anything but fond memories, and explaining why I prefer certain scents. Some people love the aroma of bacon, because it reminds them of weekend pancake breakfasts, and family hanging around in their jammies, watching cartoons or reading the newspaper. That pleasant association endures even after they've given up bacon for health reasons, or decided to become strict vegans for moral reasons.

You're also quite wrong on the "moderation" thing. It's just as possible for people to be social smokers, as it is to be social drinkers, and do so in moderation. With negligible health effects. They're the same people who can go to an All-You-Can-Eat buffet and not stuff themselves silly. It's part brain wiring and part socialization, but also amount/frequency/duration. You're conflating substances you don't like (tobacco, alcohol) that can have negative consequences, and extrapolating that with all other substances that can have negative consequences (lead, cyanide, arsenic, formaldehyde...bacon fat...petroleum distillates, carbon gases, VOCs...)

It's more harmful to a human child to be stuck in a closed system of petroleum vinyls, lead, mercury, asbestos, silica, black molds and mildew spores --- then going into "open air" that's filled with bellowing exhaust fumes and smog pollutants, inhaling deeply during exercise --- while eating foods saturated with hormones/antibiotics/pesticides/herbicides --- day after day, week after week, year after year.