I don't smoke but I know a few people who smoke Marlboro Silver pack or Ultra Lights, as they used to be known. I heard that they are safer than other cigarettes. Yes I know there is no such thing as a safe cigarette but I heard that lights and ultra lights have less additives and tar. Is that true? Can it still blacken your lungs and cause cancer and lung problems like most cigarettes? I just want to set the record straight
It's all the same. there is some evidence to suggest that lights are actually worse for you. They tend to make you pull harder and inhale deeper than regular cigarettes.
Completely false. They are just as dangerous. In fact, when the tobacco company first developed filtered cigarettes, the same rumors started. As it turns out, filters have made it worse for lung cancers. As people who smoke filter cigarettes puff more heavily, cancer that tends to develop in smokers is more deeply embedded in the lungs, rather than on the outer surface.
They are all the same. Even the 1mg ultra low tar/nic. Carlton and NOW cigarettes don't make a differencee ie. people just inhale'em harder or cover the holes on the filters to make'em more breathable...to get that fix! They don't lower one's risk. Also, it's kinda funny in a perverse sorta way - the little SKINNY THIN cigarettes ie. one brand name is Capri - are very very tiny in appearance ie. super small in diameter - well, if you break one open and empty the tobacco on a table next to a regular cigarette that has also been opened and emptied on the table - they both have just about the same amount of tobacco. The one with the tiny diameter is just more tightly wrapped. You're getting the same amount of tobacco - the same fix! Personally, I always thought the recessed filters of 'Parliaments' and the triangular recessed filters of 'True's - were the coolest. However, a nonfiltered Chesterfield or Camel has a rich flavor and a certain nostalgia too. If facing a firing squad and offered a cigarrette, I'd likely choose a nonfilterd Camel or a Chesterfield, but that's just me!!!
Absolutely. The thing that makes a cigarette a light is that light cigarettes have a series of tiny pin-holes in the paper, in the area where the tobacco meets the filter. This allows a tiny bit more air to mix in with the smoke as it's drawn into your lungs, and you get just a little bit less smoke inside you, compared to a full flavor cigarette. It's like if you're drinking something through a straw, but there is a small hole in the straw. Basically you have a leak in your airline (straw), and not as much liquid will come up cuz some of the suction is leaking through the side. I can't give you an exact figure, but if you're smoking, let's say 20 full flavor in a day, and you switch to lights, then it's like smoking perhaps 17 full flavor. A little better, but not much. All the other dangers are still there.
The addictive substance in cigarettes is Nicotine. Lights and ultra lights do not have less nicotine. The nicotine comes from the tabacco leaf. The answer: lights and ultra lights are not less addictive. Answer to 2nd question: Yes they can still backen your lungs, cause cancer and all other associated problems. The SMOKE is what blackens lungs. SMOKE from cigarrettes, second hand smoke, a burning building, and air pollution will ALL blacken your lungs. The more smoke that's inhaled the more blackened a person's lungs will be, so people who smoke a pack or more a day will have the most blackened lungs in the fastest amount of time. However, people who live in cities and do not smoke will also have blackened lungs (to a much lesser degree) from the inhaled air pollution (smoke from factories/cars ect.). Lights and Ultra Lights aren't SAFER cigarettes. The term is used to describe the FLAVOR. A strong flavor, to a light flavor to an ultra light flavor. Hope this helps :)
