Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
The title, and statement, "Alternative" cigarettes are no safer than
conventional brands, report says", by David Spurgeon (BMJ 12/14-02),would
be accurate were it not for the fact that "alternative" cigarettes,
additive-free, organics, and even Bidis, contain none of, or significantly
fewer of, the untested, often toxic and carcinogenic non-tobacco additives
and contaminants as are found in standard products. Comparisons based only
on natural chemicals in the base material, tobacco, miss the point
entirely. With so many patents for making fake tobacco out of industrial
waste cellulose, even an analysis based just on tobacco smoke is
questionable.
The purpose of using alternative types is to mitigate harm by
avoiding untested or known dangerous non-tobacco elements. This sensible
practice may eliminate harms from fire-starting "burn-accelerants",
dioxins from all the (still legal!) chlorine adulterants, radiation from
contaminated phosphate fertilizers, addiction-enhancing additives,
soothing additives that short circuit one's defenses against overdosing,
carcinogenic dust from some filters, residues from any number of hundreds
of still registered tobacco pesticides, and so on.
That altenative cigarette providers cannot legally advertise this
information constitutes a gross violation of the public's right to health
protecting information.
It would appear to be absurd to claim that unadulterated,
uncontaminated tobacco itself, which has barely, if at all, been studied
for health harms, is so deadly that all of the above represents negligible
threats. With no added addiction-enhancing substances, and with natural
levels of nicotine, one tends to smoke far fewer alternative cigarettes.
Even the most passionate anti-smoker cannot claim that smoking less is
just as unsafe as smoking more.
The act of adding the many non-tobacco substances, in virtual secret
from unsuspecting consumers, represents mass experimentation on those who
have not given informed consent, with both untested and known toxins,
carcinogens and fire-starting chemicals. It is because public officials
have ignored their duties to protect people from such homicidal industrial
spiking of tobacco that teens and others have taken it upon themselves to
mitigate harms... noting that nothing, not even the purest tobacco, is
100% without some risk.
The trouble is that the responsible industries, and their colleagues
in government, fear the presence of a Good Example, a safer cigarette,
which would expose the high degree of criminal endangerment and inevitable
harm that has been coldly permitted by officials by way of typical
cigarettes for so many decades.
Teen smokers smarter than scientists?
The title, and statement, "Alternative" cigarettes are no safer than conventional brands, report says", by David Spurgeon (BMJ 12/14-02),would be accurate were it not for the fact that "alternative" cigarettes, additive-free, organics, and even Bidis, contain none of, or significantly fewer of, the untested, often toxic and carcinogenic non-tobacco additives and contaminants as are found in standard products. Comparisons based only on natural chemicals in the base material, tobacco, miss the point entirely. With so many patents for making fake tobacco out of industrial waste cellulose, even an analysis based just on tobacco smoke is questionable.
The purpose of using alternative types is to mitigate harm by avoiding untested or known dangerous non-tobacco elements. This sensible practice may eliminate harms from fire-starting "burn-accelerants", dioxins from all the (still legal!) chlorine adulterants, radiation from contaminated phosphate fertilizers, addiction-enhancing additives, soothing additives that short circuit one's defenses against overdosing, carcinogenic dust from some filters, residues from any number of hundreds of still registered tobacco pesticides, and so on.
That altenative cigarette providers cannot legally advertise this information constitutes a gross violation of the public's right to health protecting information.
It would appear to be absurd to claim that unadulterated, uncontaminated tobacco itself, which has barely, if at all, been studied for health harms, is so deadly that all of the above represents negligible threats. With no added addiction-enhancing substances, and with natural levels of nicotine, one tends to smoke far fewer alternative cigarettes. Even the most passionate anti-smoker cannot claim that smoking less is just as unsafe as smoking more.
The act of adding the many non-tobacco substances, in virtual secret from unsuspecting consumers, represents mass experimentation on those who have not given informed consent, with both untested and known toxins, carcinogens and fire-starting chemicals. It is because public officials have ignored their duties to protect people from such homicidal industrial spiking of tobacco that teens and others have taken it upon themselves to mitigate harms... noting that nothing, not even the purest tobacco, is 100% without some risk.
The trouble is that the responsible industries, and their colleagues in government, fear the presence of a Good Example, a safer cigarette, which would expose the high degree of criminal endangerment and inevitable harm that has been coldly permitted by officials by way of typical cigarettes for so many decades.
Competing interests: None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests