The Medical Freedom Channel

Some weeks, it takes a bit of thinking to find a topic for this space; sometimes the idea is tossed in the lap. This is one of the latter cases.

There was a news story in Wednesday’s Boston Globe titled, “Cigarettes pack more nicotine.” Apparently, a study by the Mass. Department of Public Health has revealed that “From 1998 to 2004, the amount of nicotine that could be inhaled from cigarettes increased an average of 10 percent.” Moreover, the study found “higher levels in all classes of cigarettes, including those branded ‘light.’”

The story was also picked up by wire services, and discussed in a New York Times editorial the next day. The Times, noted that, “This trend has escaped notice because the standard government test uses a smoking machine that fails to mimic real-life smoking. A manufacturer, for example, can design a cigarette that will score low in nicotine delivery to the machine by placing tiny ventilation holes in the filter to dilute the smoke.

“But in real life a smoker will often cover the vents with lips or fingers, thereby inhaling a higher dose of nicotine. When Massachusetts required the manufacturers to use what it considered a more realistic method, the nicotine yields were more than twice those found on the standard test. The Massachusetts approach may not be perfect, but it is surely a lot more accurate than the traditional test, which virtually all independent experts consider deficient.” If this study is correct, the tobacco industry has been actively subverting attempts by those seeking to stop smoking, and should be severely slapped down for so doing.

It also becomes one more indictment of the Food and Drug Administration, charged with oversight of such matters to prevent “deceptive practices” by vendors – one of the few valid reasons for which the FDA is allegedly chartered. Consider also that we’re talking about something that contributes to more deaths than anything else on the planet, not some harmless substance that, taken in moderation, might make you a little fatter if you choose not to exercise afterward.

Not being a recent smoker himself (not since 1984, the final time I quit), this editor cannot comment firsthand, since no cigarettes have been personally purchased by these hands since … some time in the mid-1970s. (The ones in ‘84 were left behind by a visitor, and when they began to disappear one by one, while this editor was the only resident in the apartment … sanity soon prevailed.) However, he does know people who smoke, including many who’ve struggled mightily to either cut down or quit entirely. If their efforts have been being intentionally thwarted by the tobacco industry, there might be a rather large class-action suit in the works.

The claim by some so-called “free market advocates” is that caveat emptor should be the prevailing watchword; that is to say, if cigarette manufacturers wish to boost the addictive qualities of their product (and nicotine is indeed the substance known to produce or enhance the addiction here), they have no requirement to notify anyone they’re doing so, save the present one of listing ingredients and percentages (in fine print, barely legible to the average reader) on the side of the cigarette-pack. Under their rubric, since this information is contained (alongside the “Surgeon General’s warning” smokers have been ignoring for decades) somewhere in the fine print on the packaging, the tobacco industry is complying with current laws, and is blameless if they choose to change the data at whim, and with no notice whatsoever.

One person even raised these rather specious examples for comparison: (a) The chocolate industry, who reduced the size of candy bars – to maintain the expected price of the sweets, in spite of rising costs – until the public clamored for the normal-size bars at whatever price; (b) When gas prices go up, the public complains and seeks to suppress increases in spite of “market economic forces” involved (a weak example to be sure, given the protectionism permeating that sector of the economy); or (c) The way caffeine dosages are not always publicized in a variety of products, except as they are required to on the required labels.

Additionally, a website run by The Smokers Club, Inc. makes a fairly cogent case for smokers perhaps inhaling less deeply (and even smoking fewer of these high-dose cigarettes) in order to get their nicotine fix, and presumes that this might lead to lower tar intake and thus be “more healthy” than the previous butts were. If it were merely a case of people seeking to stay hooked on tobacco products, with no intention of stopping or cutting back, this might hold some water.

However, in the instance where a smoker is sincerely trying to quit, by gradually reducing the amount of smoking, all these factors do is make the maintenance dose a little easier to come by, and maybe merely solidifies the levels of nicotine at the same level it was before the cutting back – thus creating the illusion of progress in quitting, when there is actually just a higher wall to climb. (Yes, we can speculate on this side of the coin, with just as much validity as the TSC folks do, and with just as little real evidence present!)

Meanwhile, were we dealing with ordinary food-related items, where the dangers of overuse of the substance in question was itself still in some question (caffeine, sugar, salt, etc.), this intransigence on behalf of the “free market” might make some sense. We are not in this case. We’re discussing a known health-hazard, so proven as even being so to the awareness of tobacco executives. We’re discussing an additive or by-product of this health hazard – known to produce addiction in its users, and often claimed to be more habit-forming and harder to let go of than the big-H, heroin itself. We’re also discussing an industry that is so heavily subsidized on the one hand, and so allegedly regulated on the other, that the general public has been lulled into the belief there must be at least some control over the dosage of the addictive substance being vended per cigarette. Now we seem to find that not even that can be relied upon.

We already know, for example, that one additive to cigarettes – to keep them from going out too easily, so that they burn right down to the filters if left unattended – can be potentially hazardous to the health of those who inhale it. (This is one reason several people known to this editor over the past few years switched to buying tobacco in packages, rolling their own cigarettes and thus controlling their own intake of the stuff; little did they know, they were also controlling their level of nicotine-intake! It also might be noted that over half of the folks in this group of acquaintances have now QUIT smoking entirely! Could it be that they not only decided to stop, but found it easier to do so, once they had taken charge of the production process, and had some control over the dosages they were ingesting?)

Bottom line: There is little to be gained by defending those in the tobacco industry for this measure, assuming they are indeed guilty of the practice. (Notably little has emanated from any other media sources, although the Globe piece has been out for almost a week now. Hmmm!) If they are, an immediate disclosure would be most welcome, along with an effort to open up their marketing, with more complete disclosure involved. After all, some folks might actually like a heavier dose of nicotine for some reason, while others would prefer a lighter one, as they have been promised in the so-called “light” cigarettes (which as the study found also increased in nicotine-dosage). Pitching a variety of nicotine-intensities, as they actually did with the original introduction of the “light” cigarettes, might actually broaden their sales picture.

If on the other hand they are not guilty of doing this, an explanation and denial of this “deceptive practice” might be in order – to forestall the inevitable wave lawsuits, both frivolous and less so, certain to ensue from this news. The choice would seem to be in their hands.