Mike the Mad Biologist

Environmental health is another good reason to choose organic

Posted by: Brad Pitcher | March 14, 2009 6:14 PM

Fair enough point on cigs and the overreaching on the organic label. But, there is always a but (butt), I have noticed that most cigarettes I get downwind of cause my sinuses to freak out. These and a few clove bases ones don't.

A friend, who knows something about such things, claims the difference is the crap; glycerin, used to slow and even out burning; nitrates, used to keep cigs burning even when not smoked; etc.

I don't know but the effect on my sinuses is consistent even when I'm unaware of which cigs are being smoked. I really don't know or care how these addicts chose to poison themselves but I do object to being backed up with slime.

Posted by: Art | March 14, 2009 7:32 PM

C'mon, you're a scientist. Can you really not wrap your mind around words having more than one meaning? Or advertisers lying through implication?

Posted by: The Ridger | March 15, 2009 10:15 AM

I agree with Brad. There are other reasons to support "organic" agriculture. It reminds me of the debate about hormones in dairy production focusing on whether the milk itself is healthy and not on the long term side effects of production. I think organic tobacco is a great idea!

Posted by: Oran | March 16, 2009 2:08 PM

What Peter said is very true. It's much easier to quit smoking these than Marlboros or Camels or what have you brands which are chemically treated evidently to make them extra addictive. So it's a reasonable approach to step down to Organic American Spirit and then quit those. I also found it helpful to smoke pot instead when I craved a cigarette. Much healthier than tobacco.

Posted by: Mahakal | March 19, 2009 12:09 AM

erotik shop

Posted by: erotik shop | March 19, 2009 7:22 AM

You guys have it all wrong. Organically grown tobacco is much safer than commercial tobacco. US Surgeon General C Everett Koop stated on national television in 1990 that tobacco radiation is probably responsible for 90% of tobacco-related cancer. Radiation comes from commercial tobacco because it is grown with radioactive fertilizers that leave Polonium 210 and Lead 210 concentrated in the tobacco. This is the major cause of cancer. Organic tobacco lacks these radioactive carcinogens, (yes it contains dozens of other carcinogens so it is not safe) but those dozens of other carcinogens only cause 10% of tobacco's cancerous effects.

Posted by: Tim | March 23, 2009 11:18 AM

I think the label organic has jumped the shark...

I think it went over the shark in about 1995.

For what it's worth, 'American Spirit' is not the only or the first 'organic' tobacco. (Although I've not previously seen 'organic' tobacco in a machine-rolled cigarette - in my experience it has always been pipe tobacco or roll-your-own tobacco.) I've been seeing 'organic' tobacco since sometime in the late 1990s. (This in Salt Lake City, no less.) Speaking of roll-your-owns, I suspect (but have no data) that switching to roll-your-owns would reduce health risks far more than any changes to the sort of tobacco. Roll-your-owns take time to roll, and require both hands (for most people anyway). (Obviously actually quitting is best of all.)

Also - although I think the 'organic' label has mostly failed in its goals (in the sense that 'organic' products are only marginally more likely to be environmentally more sound, and no more likely to be healthy), one of its goals was the health of the people who produced the good - not just the health of the people using it. And when it comes to the production of tobacco, there is certainly a great deal of room for improvement in that area, although I've no idea whether 'organic' tobacco achieves any of those improvements.

Posted by: llewelly | March 23, 2009 10:45 PM

thanks for all

Posted by: sex shop | March 27, 2009 6:52 AM

Mike wrote:

Yes, an organic cigarette would probably be less harmful than one...laced with dioxin.

Posted by: Tobias Schmidbauer | May 20, 2009 8:59 AM

biber hapi

Posted by: biber hapi | September 8, 2009 9:18 AM

penis büyütücü

Posted by: penis büyütücü | September 12, 2009 4:31 AM

Why would so many non-smokers bother to weigh in on something that has little if any effect on them? Boredom? Pharmaceuticals have marketed products for years off-label. Viagra for women, fantasy stuff likely.

What on earth would cigarette companies do to increase market share and profit, anything they can get away with. A natural or organic cigarette has to be better than commercial brands. I will try anything but commercially marketed products given a choice..

Posted by: Kurt Battles | September 14, 2009 10:04 PM

Are ALL cigarettes "bad" for EVERYONE? Think about that... The objective evidence clearly says NO, for all who are open-minded enough to see (more) clearly....

Posted by: Mark Miller | January 13, 2010 2:21 PM

Are you people as stupid as your postings are showing? How many Native Americans have you known that have died of lung cancer or any other cancers in the past?....None. Not until the white man entered their lives. Now if you were a multi-billion dollar industry and wanted billions of more wouldn't you have your scientists conjur up some chemicals to make addicts of folks and keep them smoking your products at any cost? Of course you would. So, centuries of Native Americans smoking good'ol non-chemical laced tobacco has led to how many deaths in the 1,000 of years past? Probably none. So, how can natural and organically grown tobacco be harmful, except for the nicotine (gee might as well have a good cup of Joe) be harmful? Plus the nicotine concentration isn't even close to that of commercial cigs (since they add more to them). Good God people. Enjoy your smokes. Stay away from the Tobacco Giants who poision people for money. Smoke natural, organic tobacco, pot, or whatever you desire. G.D., anyone who spends money on corporate giants to poison themselves is an idiot anyways. The corporate giants aren't going to change business and come up with a less addictive and dangerous smoke. Use your freaking heads. Everyone out here is a G.D. armchair scientist. Live your lives your way. Do what you choose to do.

Posted by: mdc | January 18, 2010 5:35 PM

American spirit is owned RJ Reynolds but is not a corporate creation of the parent company. Althought many will state without proof or convincing argument that RJ Eyenolds has alterd the original formula on American Spirit cigs, I believe that cigs are the same as it was prior to RJ's buyout. Historically Americans have been smoking for more than 200 years, yet 90% of all smoking related deaths have all come in just the last 45 years. Life long smokers have been around since the revolution yet we do not find a huge population in our past with smoking related issues on a wide scale. The amount of americans that smoked back in the day was much much higher than today. The human body can take a cigarette for life, its already been proven in our history. What it CAN"T take is people smoking toxin laced cigaretts with a dilapted immune systms. This is why some life long smokers die at 40 while others at 60 and still others of just old age with non tobacco related illness.

Posted by: Jack | January 29, 2010 4:49 PM

Sorry for the double post...
The reason there are more smoking deaths within the last 45 years is the addition of all the chemicals and carcinogens to the cigarette. Some to make it burn slower, faster, more evenly, etc. If the companies took those out, we'd have a completely new cigarette.
Oh...wait though....then the pharmaceutical companies would probably suffer a major financial drop and we couldn't let that happen. (Cynicism noted.)

Posted by: Electronic Cigarette | February 2, 2010 3:32 PM