I so predicted this.

Prakosh said:
Yeah, they have been inching it up for the last twenty hears or so. There is about 15% more nicotine in cigarettes now than there was then, and no they haven't told anyone. It actually makes some sense, with all the ways to quite smoking out there they have decided to wage a battle with nicotine content as the artillery. They make the content higher smokers become even more addicted quicker and find it much harder to quit, even with patches and gum and other substitutes. Since most cigarette sales are to addicted smokers the faster they can be hooked the better. And since fewer and fewer people are smoking they had to have some way to addict people sooner than a month or more into the habit, the higher the nicotine content the sooner people are addicted. if they could design a cigarette that would addict after three puffs I am sure they would be marketing it within a day after designing it.
Click to expand...

The reason that it does not make sense to 'add' nicotine is that the addicitve dose is the addictive dose. Giving a smoker more nicotine does not make the smoker more addicted; however, it does increase the intensity of the 'experience' to a degree. So is there really 'more nicotine' in cigarettes now? I don't believe that to be true.

Here it would seem from my knowledge that some are confusing the nicotine content in cigarettes with the "absorbable dose" coming out of the smoke. It's all about the "Absorbable dose" in relationship to the addictive dose. They want the absorbable dose to be just slightly higher than the addictive dose, and they don't want to give you more than that.

When I was there, the aim was to provide the same "absorbable dose" using less tobacco leaf because tobacco is the single most costly component of a cigarette. So adding more tobacco is NOT $ wise. (In fact, every six months, we would reset the tobacco weight in a cigarette, decreasing by .5mg per stick. At 138 billion stick per year, that was some $$$.) An analogy would be providing someone with a vehicle with an (end result) 500 mile range where the cost of the fuel far outweighed the cost of the vehicle. If my big fat SUV only gets 20 mpg, I need to provide 25 gallons of gas, but if I have an efficient delivery vehicle that does 50 mpg, then I only need to provide 10 gallons to achieve the same end result. Same end result. Say it again - same end result. End result is "Absorbable dose."

There is not some natural source of nicotine that could be collected and added to the blend - it would have to come from tobacco. So how would rendering tobacco down to nicotine to then spray on tobacco make sense? It may be that someone has developed a cost effective way to render the nicotine from the non-smokable parts of the plant - stems, leaf veins - to then spray it on the leaf (?). Given the past history of seeking to reduce the tobacco weihgt, I would surmise that this would be done in an effort to accomplish that - displace the leaf tobacco by getting something usable from what had been 'waste.' In this case, the nicotine content per mg weight has been increased. (That was the purpose of the controversial YY-1 hybrid which was, literally, a safer tobacco).

IMPEO - The "absorbable dose" has NOT risen and the total nicotine has not risen, but has likely fallen.

With all that said, we still haven't talked about absorbtion rate. That is likely what we are really discussing here. Ammonia based additives match the smoke pH to lung pH to increase absorbability. The objective of "Ab dose = Ad dose with less tobacco" is fulfilled by 'increasing the mpg'; however, ammonia based pH balancers have any additional effect of creating a 'spike' effect because the nicotine also absorbs more quickly.

Summary:
Total Nicotine - down
Absorbable dose - same
Absorbtion rate - up

Did I explain well enough? I hope it was helpful.
 
leaningright said:
Exactly, US. I quit for a year and a half one time. Was doing well with it and then a buddy of mine had a baby (well, not him literally ;)) and gave me a cigar. Dummy me, I lit it up and the next day I bought a box of cigars. Now I'm back to my pack a day habit.
Click to expand...
The Patch man... The Patch. If you PM me your address I have four weeks worth of Step 2 I can send ya too!
 
Troglodyte27 said:
The reason that it does not make sense to 'add' nicotine is that the addicitve dose is the addictive dose. Giving a smoker more nicotine does not make the smoker more addicted; however, it does increase the intensity of the 'experience' to a degree. So is there really 'more nicotine' in cigarettes now? I don't believe that to be true.

Here it would seem from my knowledge that some are confusing the nicotine content in cigarettes with the "absorbable dose" coming out of the smoke. It's all about the "Absorbable dose" in relationship to the addictive dose. They want the absorbable dose to be just slightly higher than the addictive dose, and they don't want to give you more than that.

When I was there, the aim was to provide the same "absorbable dose" using less tobacco leaf because tobacco is the single most costly component of a cigarette. So adding more tobacco is NOT $ wise. (In fact, every six months, we would reset the tobacco weight in a cigarette, decreasing by .5mg per stick. At 138 billion stick per year, that was some $$$.) An analogy would be providing someone with a vehicle with an (end result) 500 mile range where the cost of the fuel far outweighed the cost of the vehicle. If my big fat SUV only gets 20 mpg, I need to provide 25 gallons of gas, but if I have an efficient delivery vehicle that does 50 mpg, then I only need to provide 10 gallons to achieve the same end result. Same end result. Say it again - same end result. End result is "Absorbable dose."

There is not some natural source of nicotine that could be collected and added to the blend - it would have to come from tobacco. So how would rendering tobacco down to nicotine to then spray on tobacco make sense? It may be that someone has developed a cost effective way to render the nicotine from the non-smokable parts of the plant - stems, leaf veins - to then spray it on the leaf (?). Given the past history of seeking to reduce the tobacco weihgt, I would surmise that this would be done in an effort to accomplish that - displace the leaf tobacco by getting something usable from what had been 'waste.' In this case, the nicotine content per mg weight has been increased. (That was the purpose of the controversial YY-1 hybrid which was, literally, a safer tobacco).

IMPEO - The "absorbable dose" has NOT risen and the total nicotine has not risen, but has likely fallen.

With all that said, we still haven't talked about absorbtion rate. That is likely what we are really discussing here. Ammonia based additives match the smoke pH to lung pH to increase absorbability. The objective of "Ab dose = Ad dose with less tobacco" is fulfilled by 'increasing the mpg'; however, ammonia based pH balancers have any additional effect of creating a 'spike' effect because the nicotine also absorbs more quickly.

Summary:
Total Nicotine - down
Absorbable dose - same
Absorbtion rate - up

Did I explain well enough? I hope it was helpful.
Click to expand...

This is all quite technical and sounds good as far as it goes. Google "increased nicotine in cigarettes," apparently The State of Massachusettes conducted the study. I don't know about the actual manufacturing of cigarettes or about the reduction in the amount of tobacco. But I know a bit about different chemical compositions of different compounds in different individual plants across different strains. I also know that they have vastly improved in the last twenty years the ability to more closely replicate certain plants through single cell reproduction or cloning if you will plants with higher and higher levels of certain substances.

I admit I don't know shit about tobacco plants but I assume that there are different strains of tobacco and other variations from the US to Brazil, some of this could be inherent in the plants and some of it could be a part of the soil just as different grapes produce different vintages of wine in different locations and soil types. Just as different coffee beans have different caffein levels depending on where they are grown it could well be that different tobacco strains have different nicotine levels depending on where they come from. I think I read where the American cigarette manufacturers are using more and more tobacco from Brazil, this could be the source of the greater nicotine levels.

Here is an excerpt from the Washington Post story. As you can see the study was based on the amount of nicotine that the cigarette companies themselves are claiming are in their cigarettes. In short, the information in the study is based simply on a comparison of the tobacco companies own reports to the State of Massachusettes over the period from 1998 until 2004. Maybe you should call your buddies back at the plant and find out what gives. They reported the figures.

Excerpt:

The trend was discovered by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, which requires that tobacco companies measure the nicotine content of cigarettes each year and report the results.

As measured using a method that mimics actual smoking, the nicotine delivered per cigarette -- the "yield" -- rose 9.9 percent from 1998 to 2004 -- from 1.72 milligrams to 1.89. The total nicotine content increased an average of 16.6 percent in that period, and the amount of nicotine per gram of tobacco increased 11.3 percent.

The study, reported by the Boston Globe, found that 92 of 116 brands tested had higher nicotine yields in 2004 than in 1998, and 52 had increases of more than 10 percent.

Boxes of Doral lights, a low-tar brand made by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., had the biggest increase in yield, 36 percent. Some of this may have been the result of an increase in the total amount of tobacco put in that brand's cigarettes, one expert said.

The nicotine in Marlboro products, preferred by two-thirds of high school smokers, increased 12 percent. Kool lights increased 30 percent. Two-thirds of African American smokers use menthol brands.

Not only did most brands have more nicotine in 2004, the number of brands with very high nicotine yields also rose.

In 1998, Newport 100s and unfiltered Camels were tied for highest nicotine yield at 2.9 milligrams. In 2004, Newport had risen to 3.2 milligrams, and five brands measured 3 milligrams or higher.
 
Last edited:
Prakosh said:
This is all quite technical and sounds good as far as it goes. Google "increased nicotine in cigarettes," apparently The State of Massachusettes conducted the study. I don't know about the actual manufacturing of cigarettes or about the reduction in the amount of tobacco. But I know a bit about different chemical compositions of different compounds in different individual plants across different strains. I also know that they have vastly improved in the last twenty years the ability to more closely replicate certain plants through single cell reproduction or cloning if you will plants with higher and higher levels of certain substances.

I admit I don't know shit about tobacco plants but I assume that there are different strains of tobacco and other variations from the US to Brazil, some of this could be inherent in the plants and some of it could be a part of the soil just as different grapes produce different vintages of wine in different locations and soil types. Just as different coffee beans have different caffein levels depending on where they are grown it could well be that different tobacco strains have different nicotine levels depending on where they come from. I think I read where the American cigarette manufacturers are using more and more tobacco from Brazil, this could be the source of the greater nicotine levels.

Here is an excerpt from the Washington Post story. As you can see the study was based on the amount of nicotine that the cigarette companies themselves are claiming are in their cigarettes. In short, the information in the study is based simply on a comparison of the tobacco companies own reports to the State of Massachusettes over the period from 1998 until 2004. Maybe you should call your buddies back at the plant and find out what gives. They reported the figures.

Excerpt:

The trend was discovered by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, which requires that tobacco companies measure the nicotine content of cigarettes each year and report the results.

As measured using a method that mimics actual smoking, the nicotine delivered per cigarette -- the "yield" -- rose 9.9 percent from 1998 to 2004 -- from 1.72 milligrams to 1.89. The total nicotine content increased an average of 16.6 percent in that period, and the amount of nicotine per gram of tobacco increased 11.3 percent.

The study, reported by the Boston Globe, found that 92 of 116 brands tested had higher nicotine yields in 2004 than in 1998, and 52 had increases of more than 10 percent.

Boxes of Doral lights, a low-tar brand made by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., had the biggest increase in yield, 36 percent. Some of this may have been the result of an increase in the total amount of tobacco put in that brand's cigarettes, one expert said.

The nicotine in Marlboro products, preferred by two-thirds of high school smokers, increased 12 percent. Kool lights increased 30 percent. Two-thirds of African American smokers use menthol brands.

Not only did most brands have more nicotine in 2004, the number of brands with very high nicotine yields also rose.

In 1998, Newport 100s and unfiltered Camels were tied for highest nicotine yield at 2.9 milligrams. In 2004, Newport had risen to 3.2 milligrams, and five brands measured 3 milligrams or higher.
Click to expand...

I have been out of tobacco since 1999, so recent develpoments I can't comment on too well. Up until then, it had always been about maintaining the "absorbable dose." A uniform bias across all measurements. Hmmm, I have a suspicion as to the causes.

(1) The smoke test methodolgy was changed in 1999. So are we measuring the apples on the same scale? A basic rule of lab science is that the same measurement equipment is to be used across the entire experiment. A change in the measurement process can induce an apparent bias, and confounds the measurement error terms that can be separated by stat analysis. (You can still generate an MSe term, but it's meaningless).

More likely though is
(2) (My speculation) Somewhere along the way, the tobacco companies found that absorption rate was a more important criterion to creating / maintaining addiction than the absorbable dose. (Let's be frank here, it was always about creating and maintaining an addiction.) So if we switch the importance of those two measures, and then undertake efforts to remove additives from the blends (I recall that legal pressure from various states to require ingrediant labeling like food was just kicking in, circa 1999, and the tobacco companies did not want to reveal the additives), how do we maintain the higher absorption rate when we remove the pH balancers (and all the crap we don't want to get sued about)? Short answer: More nicotine (increase the 'pressure' gradient as it were).

How do we get more nicotie and NOT balloon the cost of product (using more tobacco leaf) - use tobacco leaf that has a higher /mg content of nicotine. The YY-1 hybrid (Brazilian grown, developed by BAT / B&W in cooperation with the US FDA) was developed to be a high nic leaf, and was therefore safer. How is it safer? The part of the smoke that causes cancer is all the other crap that's in the smoke (tar, etc), not the nicotine. So if I want to give you the same nic content, I can do it using less high nic leaf. Less leaf means less tar and less cancer causing agents. (While it lowers cancer rates / risk of getting sued, it also means lower capital equipment costs because I create the same net output of nicotine, but need less equipment / avoid expansion.)

So, all of the results you cited above support my speculation. SHort of stealing documents, I'll never know for sure, but it's a damn fine, well educated speculation. New primary addiction criterion, "Absorption rate," displaces the long time primary criterion "Absorbable dose." I am sure that absorbable dose remains important, but not primary.

I'll ask a few people I still know, and see what I can smoke out. :) Also, the idea that different regions produce different tobacco 'parameters' is correct. The soil chemistry is hugely important in 'taste.'
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
Virtually all adults realize that fast food isn't healthy.

But, I think many people are shocked when they actually see the nutritional data, and find out a big mac has more fat, than say a five gallon bucket of ice cream does.
Click to expand...

Defintely. And labeling would go a long way to educating people on what they are eating.
 
Damocles said:
I took it off at night so I didn't have those vivid dreams...
Click to expand...

Ohhh. Don't even mention them. I loved them. I had one that...I just talked about it for days. My boyfriend at the time (ex now) got really annoyed at me too.

But that was some dream. I've had actual experiences that weren't that real feeling and intense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top