Posted on 05/09/2014 1:05:00 PM PDT by massmike
Every smoker? Not true. Hopefully I'm not the only one who doesn't litter butts or anything else. Stick the butts back in the pack or carry a tiny lidded ashtray and discard them in the trash later.
As for the smoke nazis, they need to care about way more important "crimes" than targeting smokers, IMO.
I must live in a very unusual place. Visitors and tourists are always surprised by the lack of trash, litter, cigarette butts, and graffiti here.
If I remember correctly, they’re fiberglass, or a close analogy.
And I’ve smoked Kool filter kings for 45 years.
Tossing your butts on the street, etc., is littering. I don’t do it, and I don’t like it.
I had no idea you were a smoking Nazi.
Your logic is spot on.
The reason cigarette smoke is hazardous is simply because people routinely inhale it deeply into their lungs in massive quantities over long periods of time, because of the addictive qualities of nicotine. It’s not that there’s anything all that unusually hazardous about the smoke itself.
CO in the gas phase is pretty bad, but it is present in all combustion/pyrolysis by-products. The "tar" contains many carcinogenic compounds, but so does almost all combustion by-products.
Since cigarettes are mainly tobacco and paper (wood/cellulose), I find it difficult to imagine discarded butts as all that toxic. But possibly there’s something unusually hazardous about the filters.
The U.S. market primarily uses the polymer cellulose acetate in cigarette filters. The polymer itself is not hazardous, but it does not biodegrade well at all. Some overseas markets use paper (cellulose) filters. They provide a different "taste" because they don't quite filter out the same compounds as cellulose acetate. But they do biodegrade. Of course, someone will complain that they are toxic sponges containing the "tar" that is leached out by the rain and contaminating the environment.
A big part of the problem is all the chemical additives that are put in cigarettes by the tobacco companies. If you must smoke, smoke tobacco as God created it, not the chemical laden crap from the corporate pushers.
Quote:
“yet every smoker thinks absolutely nothing about
throwing his butt out the car window”
Some of us “low information types” that smoke do not even
smoke in their car or house, and therefore do not throw
butts out the window.
Furthermore, those that do disgusts me as much as you.
However, it also disgusts me that some people are so “low
information” that they think all smokers are “low information types”.
Cigarette Butts in Nests Deter Bird Parasites - December 4, 2012
I don't mind being called a Nazi by those who pimp death or addiction.
I agree with your last statement, but your "facts" are incorrect. Used to work in a BIG U.S. tobacco CO. R&D department. Right across the hall from me were the flavor chemists. By the late 1980s they had their marching orders to dramatically reduce the chemical additives in cigarettes because they could foresee that pressure from the FTC would eventually hit them.
Basically there were 4 categories of chemical additives: (1) "casings", (2) "top flavorings", (3) "filter additives", and (4) misc. tobacco additives. All that are used are GRAS - "generally recognized as safe".
(1) "Casings" were applied to the tobacco leaves before they were chopped into "cut filler". Casings were primarily variations on sugar and humectants, e.g., glycerol. Thye had 3 purposes - (1) helped provide texture during the chopping process, (2) helped stabilize [H20], and (3) provided some desirable flavor profiles.
(2) "Top flavorings" were added to "cut filler". By far, today, the most common chemical used is menthol in the mentholated brands.
(3) "Filter additives" were sometimes used to add unique flavorings. This practice has pretty much disappeared.
(4) Misc. tobacco additives - By-products from other chemical treatments of tobacco leaves. Freon is used to manufacture expanded tobacco leaves for the purpose of increasing their size and therefore reducing the amount of tobacco used. There is very little, if any, residual Freon left in the treated tobacco. Ammonia is used to treat some tobacco leaves to reduce the harshness, primarly the pH, of tobacco smoke.
There must be something in cigarettes that makes them smell they way they do, which is vastly different from cigars or pipe tobacco. I can’t believe it’s just the paper.
I find cigarette smoke to be extremely offensive, but I am not bothered at all by good quality cigars or pipe tobacco (at least if it isn’t heavily perfumed). Why the big difference?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_additives_in_cigarettes
The linked article list the additives which you cite as “generally recognized as safe” as food additives, but points out that they have not been tested for toxic effects when they are burned.
I realize that Wikipedia is to an extent agenda driven, so is this assertion true or not true in your experience?
What about fire retardants? It that really a safe thing to have in cigarettes?
I know people who “roll their own”, and have gotten away from commercial cigarettes specifically to avoid the chemical additives. I can say from experience that the smoke from their hand-rolled smokes is far less offensive than that of store-bought cigarettes.
Why is that?
The types of tobacco used in cigar and pipe blends are different than in cigarettes - think horticulturally.
I find cigarette smoke to be extremely offensive, but I am not bothered at all by good quality cigars or pipe tobacco (at least if it isn’t heavily perfumed). Why the big difference?
I am speculating that pipe and cigar smokers don't smoke in the same locations that cigarette smokers do, nor do you encounter them as frequently. The sidestream smoke - that which is omitted into the air from the statically burning, i.e., not while puffing, tobacco is where most of the "odor" comes from with other odors coming from the ashes and "spent" filters in the ash trays. I don't attribute a difference in aromas between the different types of tobacco to chemical additives.
Wikipedia - List_of_additives_in_cigarettes
The linked article list the additives which you cite as “generally recognized as safe” as food additives, but points out that they have not been tested for toxic effects when they are burned.
Correct. I have been away from the biz for 19 years. That may have changed by now. Used to, the cigarette industry was regulated by the FTC. Not sure, but it may be regulated by the USDA now. Some of the flavoring compounds are essentially distilled into the mainstream smoke (what you inhale) and not combusted or burned, e.g., menthol. However, others, like the sugars, do burn. The nastier carcinogens produced in combustion/pyrolysis typically come from the nitrogenous compounds naturally present in the tobacco leaves, primarily proteins.
I realize that Wikipedia is to an extent agenda driven, so is this assertion true or not true in your experience?
When it comes to technical stuff on Wikipedia, epecially chemistry, I generally find it to be reliable. I have read posts by other Freepers who say the same.
What about fire retardants? It that really a safe thing to have in cigarettes?
Again, I have been out of the game for 19 years. There was a reseach program, across the cigarette industry, where they were looking into methods to reduce the incidence of accidental fires started by smoldering cigarettes. At that time it involved treating the cigarette paper with different chemicals, e.g. fire retardants, controlling the porosity of the paper, and varying the diameter of the cigarette. The results produced fouler tasting cigarettes with marginally smaller rates of accidental fires. I have yet to see any cigarettes come on the market which advertise this trait of fire safety. I suspect with the decline of the U.S. cigarette industry over the last 25 years, it has ceased to become an area of research. Fire safety is certainly an attribute of the new e-cigarettes, but I never hear that feature advertised.
I know people who “roll their own”, and have gotten away from commercial cigarettes specifically to avoid the chemical additives. I can say from experience that the smoke from their hand-rolled smokes is far less offensive than that of store-bought cigarettes. Why is that?
Again, if you were subjected to long term exposure of ryo, e.g., in a car or someone's "smoking" room, I would expect that you would eventually object to the odor. It may not be as bad as commercial cigarettes, but it would be there. Also, when you say "ryo", where do your friends get their tobacco cut filler? If they buy a commerical product, e.g., Prince Albert ("in the can"), then that tobacco is treated with the casing chemicals and top flavoring chemicals. I am not current in the "ryo" market. I imagine some small-scale entrepreneurs provide tobacco cut filler that is additive-free just for that micro-market.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.