Less hazardous smoking and the pursuit of satisfaction.

Abstract

Cigarettes deliver drugs; at root smoking is drug taking.' Scientific work has confirmed nicotine as a powerfully reinforcing, psychoactive drug.2 For the consumer, then, ultra-low-yield cigarettes raise the simple issue of drug "cutting" or adulteration. The unsatisfactoriness ofultra-low-yield cigarettes is seen in the scarcity of customers for these products even in health-conscious California. As noted by Maron and Fortmann in this issue of the Journal,3 only 3.8 per cent of smokers in a population-based sample smoke cigarettes in the range of 0.1 to 0.2 mg nicotine, 1 to 2 mg "tar". Despite the publicity about disease risks of smoking and the widespread belief that ultra-low-yield cigarettes are less hazardous, most smokers will not cross the street for these cigarettes, let alone walk the advertised mile.No doubt smokers have routinely tried ultra-low-yield cigarettes and just as routinely have rejected them as unsatisfying. A 1 mg "tar", 0.1 mg nicotine cigarette delivers about 80 per cent diluting air in each pufftaken by official smoking machines. 4 Those smokers who learn the tricks of compensatory smoking are more likely to persist in smoking these cigarettes than are those smokers who do not develop satisfactory compensation techniques. For ultra-low-yield cigarettes, the main "oversmoking" techniques are blocking the diluting air vents on filters with lips or fingers,5 taking larger puffs, and, as Maron and Fortmann3 remind us, simply smoking more cigarettes per day. A smoker self-selection bias (compensators remain, noncompensators leave) may cause much of the discouraging pattern found in and reviewed in the current report.3Experimental Evidence-Recent experiments show a more encouraging picture of what might be gained from the widespread use of ultra-low-yield cigarettes by smokers who refuse to quit smoking. West, et al,6 randomly assigned 14 smokers to remain with their own brand (average 1.3 mg nicotine, 14.2 mg "tar") and 12 smokers to switch to an ultra-low yield brand (0.1 mg nicotine, 1 mg "tar"). Over 10 days of smoking, the ultra-low yield group had plasma nicotine levels that were only 40 per cent of the own brand group (9.4 vs 22.8 ng/ml); carbon monoxide levels differed by 30 per cent (10.5 vs 33.2 ppm). (Although not noted in the Method, smokers were explicitly instructed not to block filter vents [R. West, Personal Communication]). Similarly, in the experimental component of their report, Benowitz, et al,7 found partial compensation in smokers who were forced to smoke ultra-low-yield cigarettes. (Behavioral blocking offilter vents was not forbidden in this study, but may have been discouraged by details of the procedure.8)The combined lesson of the cross-sectional surveys and the forced switching experiments is that, if there is to be maximal progress with the current style ultra-low yield cigarette, its use needs to be encouraged more forcefully. One of the reasons smokers don't put up with ultra-low-yields is that higher yield cigarettes are only an easy purchase away. Imagine a c...

Cigarette filter ventilation is a defective design because of misleading taste, bigger puffs, and blocked vents

“…124 Working to derive nicotine from lower tar cigarettes Smokers select cigarette brands for a variety of biological and psychosocial reasons. 132 A key biological factor is the psychoactive effects of nicotine from cigarettes. A key psychosocial factor is to smoke a brand that conforms to one's self image.…”

Advertising Fails to Inform Smokers of Official Tar Yields of Cigarettes1

“…Smokers behaviorally compensate for lower standard yields by taking more or larger puffs or by blocking filter ventilation holes with their fingers or lips (e.g., Kozlowski & Pillitteri, 1996). The designations "light" and "ultralight" should be considered substantially false and misleading to a smoking public that appears (a) to know little about the limitations and nature of FTC cigarette testing (Cohen, 1996) and (b) to view low-tar cigarettes as less risky to health (e.g., Giovino et al, 1996;Kozlowski, 1987;Warner & Slade, 1992). Low-yield cigarettes have not been proven scientifically to be, and are not likely to be, significantly less risky than the popular regular (e.g., 16 mg tar) cigarettes of today.…”

“…In addition to failing to substantially reduce risks to continuing smokers, low-yield cigarettes are also keeping smokers who would otherwise quit (or try to quit) from doing so (cf. Giovino et al, 1996;Kozlowski, 1987;Warner & Slade, 1992).…”

Tobacco Smoking: Where Have We Been and Where Are We Now?

“…The net result of these various manipulations (including the reductions in tar and nicotine) is that the smoker today must consume more cigarettes over the same period of time to reach the same level of satisfaction as the smoker of years past. [23][24][25]…”