nicotine delivery device

[smiles 0]

My nicotine delivery device started as Player's (I called them heavies)- then 10 yrs. ago made the "big" switch to Player's light and started smoking a pack a day (doubled.)

Therefore, tar and nicotine level more than doubled as not only smoked more but sucked twice as hard. More bang for each suck…

Player's light is the most popular cigarette in Canada thanx to the technical know-how and assistance of Agriculture Canada scientists.

I've made the "big" switch back to "heavies" and back to smoking less than !/2 pack a day-- and no more "sucking harder."

The Ontario and B.C. governments are suing the tobacco industry to recoup health-care costs for treating smoking-related diseases.

3 major cigarette manufacturers in Canada have agreed to begin phasing out "light" and "mild" on their packaging (there are 11 brands of Players cigarettes on the market.)

Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Rothmans Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI-Macdonald Corp. will begin changing their labels on Dec. 31

Now for a limited time, Player's brand cigarettes are being sold in a nostalgic retro blue tin that features a whimsical picture of an old-fashioned ship and engraved signature of John Player inside. Warning labels and smoking bans are no match for cigarettes that come wrapped in a pretty package to enhance the premium perception of the brand, apparently we kind of wear a cigarette like fashion……..

(attached pic of limited edition tin & lighter)

Deep blue colouring is offset by a written testimonial that praises the "century of experience and craftsmanship" that is "all rolled up in a rich, full-bodied smoke" proudly called Player's..tobacco experts since 1877…

So- now as my tin is so "special"…I open it less often to light up a smoke with my Player's .."a true original" lighter. I am proud to be in this stage of less than 6 smokes a day and have more confidence that I will kick this habit.

Besides I will have my limited edition tins to keep for nostalgic reasons (they have far greater uses than for cigarettes…)

SMiles

eustress. : a positive form of stress having a beneficial effect on health, motivation, performance, and emotional well-being.

[kbordson 8]

Quote

they have far greater uses than for cigarettes…)

Storing ashes? (dark humor, I know... but when you said that... it popped to mind)

I don't really agree with all the lawsuits against tobacco companies. As a Dr., I see some of the effects of smoking, smoking and pregnancy, health and wellness.... Patients KNOW not to smoke. I ask them if they're ready to quit, but I don't harrass them.... People KNOW. The lawsuits are just trying to displace blame by saying "the tobacco company made me do it" whether it's cuz it's addictive or comes in cute little tin with appealing packaging. "Recoup health care costs" is a dangerous excuse for a lawsuit... look where it could lead. Smoking is dangerous - lets sue Malboro. Obesity is dangerous - lets sue Mickey D's. Skydiving is dangerous - lets sue Javelin. Running is dangerous - lets sue Nike. Ultimately LIFE is dangerous. We are all gonna die. We just have to be willing to be responsible for our actions while in this world.

But... cute tin.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I don't really agree with all the lawsuits against tobacco companies. As a Dr., I see some of the effects of smoking, smoking and pregnancy, health and wellness.... Patients KNOW not to smoke. I ask them if they're ready to quit, but I don't harrass them.... People KNOW. The lawsuits are just trying to displace blame by saying "the tobacco company made me do it" whether it's cuz it's addictive or comes in cute little tin with appealing packaging. "Recoup health care costs" is a dangerous excuse for a lawsuit... look where it could lead. Smoking is dangerous - lets sue Malboro. Obesity is dangerous - lets sue Mickey D's. Skydiving is dangerous - lets sue Javelin. Running is dangerous - lets sue Nike. Ultimately LIFE is dangerous. We are all gonna die. We just have to be willing to be responsible for our actions while in this world.

I used to feel the same way about lawsuits against the tobacco industry until I found out they were taking steps to make their product more addictive. If you choose to remove the "free" from free market by largely eliminating your customers' ability to not purchase your product, you forego the protection of law in that free market.

You're absolutely right. We just have to be willing to be responsible for our actions while in this world. That includes corporations. Let 'em pay.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I don't really agree with all the lawsuits against tobacco companies. As a Dr., I see some of the effects of smoking, smoking and pregnancy, health and wellness.... Patients KNOW not to smoke. I ask them if they're ready to quit, but I don't harrass them.... People KNOW. The lawsuits are just trying to displace blame by saying "the tobacco company made me do it" whether it's cuz it's addictive or comes in cute little tin with appealing packaging. "Recoup health care costs" is a dangerous excuse for a lawsuit... look where it could lead. Smoking is dangerous - lets sue Malboro. Obesity is dangerous - lets sue Mickey D's. Skydiving is dangerous - lets sue Javelin. Running is dangerous - lets sue Nike. Ultimately LIFE is dangerous. We are all gonna die. We just have to be willing to be responsible for our actions while in this world.

I used to feel the same way about lawsuits against the tobacco industry until I found out they were taking steps to make their product more addictive. If you choose to remove the "free" from free market by largely eliminating your customers' ability to not purchase your product, you forego the protection of law in that free market.

You're absolutely right. We just have to be willing to be responsible for our actions while in this world. That includes corporations. Let 'em pay.

Where are the corporate strongarm squads forcing people to buy cigarettes? Please provide evidence.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[livetofall 0]

the ironic thing is that light cigarettes have always been worse. To get the "flavor" of a full cigarette, more chemicals are added, and yes you need to pull harder to get a drag due to the pinholes of air. the chemicals are more cancer inducing then the tobacco itself. Thats why you dont have as many pipe smokers with lung cancer. When I smoked, I smoked Nat Shermans(no chemicals). When working in Alberta, I eventually ran out of my american cigarettes that were nowhere to be found, even in Edmonton. You can smell and taste the chemicals in players as bad as marlboros. I decided to take up smoking a pipe, as chew was outrageously priced. I couldnt belive how expensive pipe tobacco is up there. For the Canadian gov wanting to sue, why the hell would they tax pipe tobacco so hard. it was $18 oz compared to states at 2.50 and I am talking shop blend not the cheap stuff. It was more costly to smoke a pipe than cigarettes. Go figure.
When you work a job that requires a mask you need a pulminary function test to see if you can wear one,for it works on your heart,now think of a cigarette, better off smoking a filterless.
Glad I quit. Now hopefully my lip dont fall off.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Where are the corporate strongarm squads forcing people to buy cigarettes? Please provide evidence.

Most people start smoking when they are teenagers. The idea is that the product is deliberately made particularly attractive to pre-smokers and early smokers when they are still at a very impressionable age, particularly susceptible to peer and societal pressure to conform or act more grown up by smoking. But once these young people start smoking, the highly addictive properties of nicotine kick in, so by the time they've got some maturity under their belts at, say, age 26 or so, they're so addicted to the drug that quitting is incredibly difficult, and most don't. So, they keep smoking until their health is significantly, sometimes fatally, compromised by the time they're in their 50's.


Making cigarettes lighter and more universally tasty is another way the tobacco companies draw in some people to smoke who might otherwise not. It's a less blatant means of aggressive marketing than commercials and billboards, but it's deliberate marketing nevertheless. Illustrative anecdote: When I was a teen, I found regular cigarettes too strong and shitty-tasking to smoke them much. But for me, light menthol cigarettes were much easier to smoke. I wound up not becoming a smoker anyway, but I easily could have, and that's why.

Whether or not the tobacco companies know this fully well and yet irresponsibly, out of greed, continued to market their addictive products nonetheless is the factual issue decided by juries in tobacco trials. The trials that end up in a plaintiff's verdict (and some do result in defense verdicts) are the juries answering "yes" to this factual issue.

Kbordson: The difference between tobacco lawsuits (which I think have 85-90% merit) and Micky D's lawsuits (which I think are 90% bullshit) is that although the 2 industries engage in similar marketing strategies, and overuse of their respective products can be deleterious to health, Big Macs are not "addictive" in the true sense of the word, whereas nicotine, of course, is.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Where are the corporate strongarm squads forcing people to buy cigarettes?

The act of taking steps to make their product more addictive is effectively manipulating market forces.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[mnealtx 0]

The companies are going to get all the 'market share' that they can. Calling them responsible for an individual's decision to start or continue smoking is ludicrous.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kbordson 8]

I still think PERSONAL responsibility is a bigger issue. There's way to much "It's not my fault...." in our current society. It's too easy to displace blame and not acknowledge your role in YOUR life. Winston Salem has NEVER come knocking on my door... I've tried a cig or two, I actually prefer cigars. But... I don't want to get lung cancer like my Dad did... so I limit it. Can others do the same, I don't know. But do they KNOW the right thing... yes. Many just want to look to another for their weaknesses. (and for the record, I'm not saying an addictive personality is a weakness - my stepdad has an addictive personality and with his Lupus and chronic pain... meds are an issue... BUT not acknowledging that you have one is.)

Big business is trying to make money. You as an individual get to decide whether you give it to them or not.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

The companies are going to get all the 'market share' that they can. Calling them responsible for an individual's decision to start or continue smoking is ludicrous.

It's not ludicrous at all. What is ludicrous is protecting an industry that produces a product that kills one in three users when used as directed.

Had the tobacco industry not taken steps to make their product more addictive (with the knowledge that their product was deadly), I might have some sympathy. As it is, they effectively manipulated the market. I have no more sympathy for them than I do the executives of Enron or Worldcom.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

The companies are going to get all the 'market share' that they can. Calling them responsible for an individual's decision to start or continue smoking is ludicrous.

It's not ludicrous at all. What is ludicrous is protecting an industry that produces a product that kills one in three users when used as directed.

Had the tobacco industry not taken steps to make their product more addictive (with the knowledge that their product was deadly), I might have some sympathy. As it is, they effectively manipulated the market. I have no more sympathy for them than I do the executives of Enron or Worldcom.

Again, I say bullshit. The user has the ability to not start, or to stop at any time... not to mention the surgeon general's warning label.

Smoking or not smoking is a PERSONAL decision...just like skydiving is. Should skydivers be able to sue PD because they frapped in after trying a Katana because "the company intentionally made the product more enticing to the user"?

I know you won't agree - like chivalry, personal responsibility is rapidly dying out.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

The user has the ability to . . . stop at any time... not to mention the surgeon general's warning label.

Can we assume you've never suffered from an addiction? IIRC, it was C Everett Koop who claimed smoking cigarettes was seven times more addictive than using heroin.

If you don't understand how addiction affects people, you can't understand my point. By it's very nature, when someone is addicted to a substance, their body not only wants that substance, but it needs that substance.

Quote

Smoking or not smoking is a PERSONAL decision...just like skydiving is. Should skydivers be able to sue PD because they frapped in after trying a Katana because "the company intentionally made the product more enticing to the user"?

I know you won't agree - like chivalry, personal responsibility is rapidly dying out.

That is a really bad analogy. I know several world class canopy pilots. I've never seen any of them suffer physically because they were denied the ability to swoop. Hell, many even welcome an occasional break.

On the other hand, I've never seen an addict willingly decide to take a couple days off from their addiction.

I absolutely agree with personal responsibility, for everybody. Cigarette smokers are not without blame. Neither is the tobacco industry. The smokers often die for their poor choices. The tobacco industry should not be without punishment for their deeds. Lawsuits are the best alternative to jailing the shareholders.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Can we assume you've never suffered from an addiction? IIRC, it was C Everett Koop who claimed smoking cigarettes was seven times more addictive than using heroin.

If you don't understand how addiction affects people, you can't understand my point. By it's very nature, when someone is addicted to a substance, their body not only wants that substance, but it needs that substance.

You can assume that, but you'd be incorrect - I've been a pack-a-day smoker (more or less) for the last 25 years. I can absolutely GUARANTEE you that it was MY decision to pick up the habit.

Quote

That is a really bad analogy. I know several world class canopy pilots. I've never seen any of them suffer physically because they were denied the ability to swoop. Hell, many even welcome an occasional break.

On the other hand, I've never seen an addict willingly decide to take a couple days off from their addiction.

It wasn't meant to be an analogy of the skydiver, but the family that wants to sue the manufacturer over someone's personal choice that went bad.

Quote

I absolutely agree with personal responsibility, for everybody. Cigarette smokers are not without blame. Neither is the tobacco industry. The smokers often die for their poor choices. The tobacco industry should not be without punishment for their deeds. Lawsuits are the best alternative to jailing the shareholders.

See above about the analogy.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kbordson 8]

Quote

That is a really bad analogy. I know several world class canopy pilots. I've never seen any of them suffer physically because they were denied the ability to swoop. Hell, many even welcome an occasional break.

On the other hand, I've never seen an addict willingly decide to take a couple days off from their addiction.

OK..... better analogy.

As I stated above, my stepdad has an addictive personality (I won't go into to full details out of respect for him) But he then contracted Lupus (rare in men, I know... but that aside). MAJOR PAIN ISSUES in his clinical situation with Lupus. So his doc started pain meds (my step dad didn't share his past at first.) BIG ISSUES then evolved. Should my family sue Purdue Frederick (makers of MS Contin)? NO! It's not the drug companys fault. Once my step dad acknowledged the issues... we got him the help he needed.

I'm not saying addiction is good or that tobacco companies are entirely innocent in selling an addictive agent... but ultimately this is YOUR life. Live it the way YOU want. If that includes smoking even though your dad died of Lung cancer and your mom has COPD... go for it.... my sister is. Do I fault her? Do I fault the tobacco companies? Do I fault her doctor? She has the lion share here.... at least 90-95%.... why CUZ SHE KNOWS! And she's choosing not to quit. Would it be hard... HELL YEAH! But.... until she makes that CHOICE... nothing else really matters. But... it's her life, and if that's the way she wants to live.... It's not my place to preach.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

OK..... better analogy.

Not really any better.

As I said, the smokers are not without blame. They'll get theirs. Nobody is going to die of lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease, etc. for them. They have to suffer themselves. Also suffering are those who were exposed to a lifetime of second-hand smoke, without ever making the personal decision to start smoking. To shelter the tobacco companies from their fair share of the responsibility is absolutely ludicrous.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kbordson 8]

Quote

Also suffering are those who were exposed to a lifetime of second-hand smoke, without ever making the personal decision to start smoking. To shelter the tobacco companies from their fair share of the responsibility is absolutely ludicrous.

No need to be so preachy.... Choir here....

My mom never smoked - COPD.
Three lil girls... we didn't make a personal decision when we were 4 or 5 ...

I'm not "sheltering" the tobacco company. Just saying that my dad chose to smoke. My sister is now currently choosing to smoke (but since she just had a little girl... her decision is changing)

I'm still holding firm. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

If I smoke, it's my fault. If I'm fat, it's my fault. If I'm ignorant, my fault. (ok... maybe ugly and poor have other variables) But overall... you have one shot at this life. Live it the way YOU want. Don't let outside factors take credit or blame for your life.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I'm still holding firm. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

And I'm sticking to my guns that the world is not so black and white that responsibility for bad choices cannot be justifiably shared.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[smiles 0]

Quote

I don't really agree with all the lawsuits against tobacco companies.

I don't agree with the lawsuits. and also question government regulation and tax on cigarettes.

Tobacco is a legal product that remains a habitual pleasure for one Canadian in four- cigarette tax falls on adults above the age of 20 who make up 9/10ths of smokers.

assessing the regulation of tobacco entails an examination of several important public-policy questions:
-the enforcement of the rule of law;
-the importance of property rights;
-the question of individual responsibility;
-issues of freedom of speech;
-the personal freedom to trade longevity knowingly for pleasure.

In the case of tougher restrictions and higher taxes on smokers,
(cost of over $8.00 cnd. a package)
the argument is that those measures are needed to reduce the economic costs that result from cigarette use.
So question regarding smoking is not "how much does smoking cost?" but "how much, if any, of the costs are paid by non-smokers?"

The Canadian Cancer Society says 153,000 new cases of cancer are expected in Canada this year and there will be more than 70,000 cancer-related deaths.

How much does diet….re: fats contribute to deaths from cancer?

Tobacco regulation in practise, may miss it's objective of decreasing smoking.

Regulation seems well coordinated with tax increases on smokers-

Does regulation help to shame smokers into accepting rising taxes on their habit?

If government is granted power to regulate does this write our leaders a carte blanche to tax?

Can regulation be proved to reduce smoking and increase health of smokers?

Has smoking advertising bans reduced the amount of tobacco consumption?

Smoking regulations late arrival and it's dubious record of controlling smoking suggests to me that other motives than concern for public health may be driving the government. (In 1985-1991 as the % of smokers fell- governments in Canada managed to raise their real revenues from tobacco by 39.8%)

Quote

Ultimately LIFE is dangerous. We are all gonna die. We just have to be willing to be responsible for our actions while in this world.

exactly!


SMiles

eustress. : a positive form of stress having a beneficial effect on health, motivation, performance, and emotional well-being.

[wuffo2 0]

Quote

Quote

The user has the ability to . . . stop at any time... not to mention the surgeon general's warning label.

Can we assume you've never suffered from an addiction? IIRC, it was C Everett Koop who claimed smoking cigarettes was seven times more addictive than using heroin.

If you don't understand how addiction affects people, you can't understand my point. By it's very nature, when someone is addicted to a substance, their body not only wants that substance, but it needs that substance.

Quote

Smoking or not smoking is a PERSONAL decision...just like skydiving is. Should skydivers be able to sue PD because they frapped in after trying a Katana because "the company intentionally made the product more enticing to the user"?

I know you won't agree - like chivalry, personal responsibility is rapidly dying out.

That is a really bad analogy. I know several world class canopy pilots. I've never seen any of them suffer physically because they were denied the ability to swoop. Hell, many even welcome an occasional break.

On the other hand, I've never seen an addict willingly decide to take a couple days off from their addiction.

I absolutely agree with personal responsibility, for everybody. Cigarette smokers are not without blame. Neither is the tobacco industry. The smokers often die for their poor choices. The tobacco industry should not be without punishment for their deeds. Lawsuits are the best alternative to jailing the shareholders.

Man. From what I've read on this forum I'm usually w/ you BUT, on this one I have to say, I smoke like a chimney and I know it's prolly killin me BUT , I sure as fuck ain't gonna sue someone. Personal decesions dude. Just like jumping out of a perfectly good airplane

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm still holding firm. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

And I'm sticking to my guns that the world is not so black and white that responsibility for bad choices cannot be justifiably shared.

I'm sticking to my guns, too (basically same side as you), except I don't view it strictly as sharing responsibility for bad choices. I'd agree that's what it is if most smokers started as adults, or if cigarettes weren't addictive. But as I noted, most smokers start as less-responsible teens, and by the time their "personal responsibility" kicks in, they're already hooked to an extremely addictive drug, and the tobacco companies are well aware of this. And that's why the companies should share in the responsibility.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm still holding firm. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

And I'm sticking to my guns that the world is not so black and white that responsibility for bad choices cannot be justifiably shared.

I'm sticking to my guns, too (basically same side as you), except I don't view it strictly as sharing responsibility for bad choices. I'd agree that's what it is if most smokers started as adults, or if cigarettes weren't addictive. But as I noted, most smokers start as less-responsible teens, and by the time their "personal responsibility" kicks in, they're already hooked to an extremely addictive drug, and the tobacco companies are well aware of this. And that's why the companies should share in the responsibility.

So, by the same logic, people should be able to sue Chevrolet the next time someone wraps a Corvette around a tree.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm still holding firm. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

And I'm sticking to my guns that the world is not so black and white that responsibility for bad choices cannot be justifiably shared.

I'm sticking to my guns, too (basically same side as you), except I don't view it strictly as sharing responsibility for bad choices. I'd agree that's what it is if most smokers started as adults, or if cigarettes weren't addictive. But as I noted, most smokers start as less-responsible teens, and by the time their "personal responsibility" kicks in, they're already hooked to an extremely addictive drug, and the tobacco companies are well aware of this. And that's why the companies should share in the responsibility.

So, by the same logic, people should be able to sue Chevrolet the next time someone wraps a Corvette around a tree.

As I like to say (probably too often), analogies are, by definition, deficient. Not every issue is best analyzed by drawing comparisons. That's why I generally dislike "arguing analogies" as so often happens in SC. And I think the tobacco lawsuit issue might have enough unique characteristics to not be well-suited to analogies.

Having said that, if Corvettes were marketed aggressively to juveniles, and most people tended to start driving Corvettes while still in their teens, and if driving a Corvette were as physically and chemically addictive as heroin (which many clinicians think nicotine is), and if Corvettes had a very high propensity for spontaneously wrapping themselves around trees when driven with regularity, and if the car companies knew all this but nevertheless aggressively marketed the driving of Corvettes to juveniles....well, you can see where this is going.

[mnealtx 0]

You're still wanting to hold a company responsible for a personal choice. Whether that choice is smoking, drinking, fast cars or skydiving, it's still a PERSONAL decision, no matter how attractive or addictive (physically, emotionally or mentally) the activity is.

It's the same type of ethical gymnastics that tries to blame video games instead of parenting for school shootings.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

You're still wanting to hold a company responsible for a personal choice.

No I'm not, and I've specifically explained in at least two posts that I'm not. At some point I'm simply no longer willing to keep repeating myself in the same thread. As I said, I stand by my posts.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

You're still wanting to hold a company responsible for a personal choice.

No I'm not, and I've specifically explained in at least two posts that I'm not. At some point I'm simply no longer willing to keep repeating myself in the same thread. As I said, I stand by my posts.

From the last sentence of your post.

Quote

And that's why the companies should share in the responsibility.

Whether you mean it to be that way or not, that is what will (and does) happen. The company manufacturing the product is deemed responsible for a person's CHOICE to use that product.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706