Talk:Cigarette/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Legal age in Germany

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

Legal age in England Tense Problem

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

History of Cigarettes?

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

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

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

Nicotine

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

Lung cancer

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

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

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

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

Mass-- net weight of tobacco in each cigarette?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Important?

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

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

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

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

Smoking in Argentina

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

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

Consumption Stat Seems Off

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

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

"Public Place"

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

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

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

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

British Colloquialism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reference

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

Smoking in Egypt

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

Smoking bans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'Mistake'

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

New Cigarette Paper in the US

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

Kovu401 02:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Class A?

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

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

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

Citation problem

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

Benzopyrene is a highly carcinogenic and mutagenic compound which is formed during the incomplete combustion of organic matter. Tobacco manufacturers have experimented with combustion less vaporizer technology to allow cigarettes to be consumed without the formation of carcinogenic benzopyrenes.^[1]

I have two problems with this:

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

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

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

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

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

Names for cigarettes (fag, cig)

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

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

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

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

Cancer rates rise dramatically after the 40's.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frotz 05:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

India changes by 160.254.20.253

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

Prison Currency

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

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

History

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

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

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

Colloquial Names (New Article)

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

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

creep over from Health_effects_of_tobacco_smoking

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

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

NOT stress relief

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

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

Legal Age in Switzerland

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

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

Natural delicious flavor???

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

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

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

Can't find it!!!

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

How many

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

why

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

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

Better Image

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

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

Reason for mentioning "Kerala"?

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