Self-selected blocking of vents on low-yield cigarettes

doi:10.1016/0091-3057(89)90476-0

Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior

Volume 33, Issue 4, August 1989, Pages 815-819

https://doi.org/10.1016/0091-3057(89)90476-0 Get rights and content

Abstract

Blockers of vents in ultra-low-yield cigarettes had higher levels of carbon monoxide (CO) and salivary cotinine than did nonblockers. None of the blockers reported that they blocked vents. Exposure differences seemed not to be due simply to vent blocking, but also to be result of syndromes of heavier (blocking, more cigarettes per day, and starting earlier in the morning) or lighter smoking (not blocking, fewer cigarettes per day, and starting later in the morning). The results are interpreted in light of the boundary model. Cigarette smoking and brand selection should be studied as they occur naturally, as well as in experimentally contrived studies.

References (26)

K. Fagerstrom et al.
Compensation and effective smoking by different nicotine dependent smokers
Addict. Behav.
(1981)
G. Gori et al.
Smoker intake from cigarettes in the 1-mg Federal Trade Commission tar class
Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol.
(1983)
G. Gori et al.
Analytical cigarette yields as predictors of smoke bioavailability
Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol.
(1985)
P. Jacob et al.
Improved gas chromatographic method for the determination of nicotine and cotinine in biologic fluids
J. Chromatogr.
(1981)
L.T. Kozlowski et al.
Tobacco dependence, restraint and time to the first cigarette of the day
Addict. Behav.
(1981)
T. Lombardo et al.
When low tar cigarettes yield high tar: cigarette filter ventilation hole blocking and its detection
Addict. Behav.
(1983)
J.P. Zacny et al.
Cigarette filter vent blocking: Effects on smoking topography and carbon monoxide exposure
Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav.
(1986)
D.B. Abrams et al.
Saliva cotinine as a measure of smoking status in field settings
Am. J. Public Health
(1987)
N.E. Benowitz et al.
Reduced tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide exposure while smoking ultra-low- but not low-yield cigarettes
JAMA
(1986)
G. Camelli et al.
Applicability of chi-square to 2 × 2 contingency tables with small expectd cell frequencies
Psychol. Bull.
(1978)

A.L. Edwards

An introduction to linear regression and correlation

(1976)

Heatherton, T. F.; Kozlowski, L. T.; Frecker, R. C.; Rickert, W.; Robinson, J. Using self-reported time to the first...

L.T. Kozlowski

Blocking the filter vents of cigarettes

JAMA

(1986)

Cited by (32)

Daily users compared to less frequent users find vape as or more satisfying and less dangerous than cigarettes, and are likelier to use non-cig-alike vaping products
2017, Preventive Medicine Reports
Citation Excerpt :
It is notable that the major Food and Drug Administration sponsored multi-million dollar PATH survey when assessing reason for use of e-cigarettes did not include any measures of satisfaction or enjoyment (Hyland et al., 2016). Enjoyment or satisfaction for a recreational drug product is likely to influence the use of the product (Kozlowski et al., 1989a; Saddleson et al., 2016). Satisfaction is considered associated with the abuse potential of drug products, and some authorities have proposed that less harmful nicotine/tobacco products should strive for only moderate levels of satisfaction (Niaura, 2016).
We assessed the roles of perceived satisfaction and perceived danger and vaping-product-type as correlates of more frequent use of vaping products. In a baseline assessment of a longitudinal study of US Army Reserve/National Guard Soldiers and their partners (New York State, USA, 2014–2016), participants were asked about current use of vaping products (e-cigarettes) and perceived satisfaction and danger in comparison to cigarettes as well as type of product used. Fisher-exact tests and multiple ordinal logistic regressions were used. In multivariable and univariate models, more perceived satisfaction, less perceived danger, and use of non-cig-alike products were associated with more frequent use of vaping products (ps < 0.05, two-tailed). For self-selected, more frequent adult users, e-cigs can be at least as satisfying as cigarettes and often more satisfying and are perceived as less dangerous than cigarettes. Non-cig-alike products were more likely in daily users. Some concern that e-cigs are a gateway to cigarettes arises from assuming that e-cigs may not be as reinforcing and pleasurable as cigarettes. These results indicate that accurate perception of comparative risk and use of more effective-nicotine delivery product can produce for some users a highly-satisfying alternative to cigarettes.
Who switches from regular to light cigarettes? A study of six provincial capital cities in China
2016, Public Health
Citation Excerpt :
Light cigarettes were first introduced in the 1950s and 1960s and are currently the most commonly used cigarettes in the world. These cigarettes are marketed with claims that they deliver less nicotine and tar than regular cigarettes; however, such claims influence people to believe that light cigarettes are safe, prompting some people to start smoking or to continue to smoke light cigarettes when they might otherwise have quit smoking.1,2 Many individual factors, including demographic and smoking characteristics, may be associated with switching from regular to light cigarettes.1,2
Withholding differential risk information on legal consumer nicotine/tobacco products: The public health ethics of health information quarantines
2016, International Journal of Drug Policy
The United States provides an example of a country with (a) legal tobacco/nicotine products (e.g., snus, other smokeless tobacco, cigarettes) differing greatly in risks to health and (b) respected health information websites that continue to omit or provide incorrect differential risk information. Concern for the principles of individual rights, health literacy, and personal autonomy (making decisions for oneself), which are key principles of public health ethics, has been countered by utilitarian arguments for the use of misleading or limited information to protect public health overall. We argue that omitting key health relevant information for current or prospective consumers represents a kind of quarantine of health-relevant information. As with disease quarantines, the coercive effects of quarantining information on differential risks need to be justified, not merely by fears of net negative public health effects, but by convincing evidence that such measures are actually warranted, that public health overall is in imminent danger and that the danger is sufficient to override principles of individual autonomy. Omitting such health-relevant information for consumers of such products effectively blindfolds them and impairs their making informed personal choices. Moral psychological issues that treat all tobacco/nicotine products similarly may also be influencing the reluctance to inform on differential risks. In countries where tobacco/nicotine products are legally sold and also differ greatly in disease risks compared to cigarettes (e.g., smokeless tobacco and vape), science-based, comprehensible, and actionable health information (consistent with health literacy principles) on differential risks should be available and only reconsidered if it is established that this information is causing losses to population health overall.
What smokers believe about light and ultralight cigarettes
2003, Preventive Medicine
Objectives. To assess the knowledge of smokers and ex-smokers about light cigarettes and nicotine yields and their perception of the risk of lung cancer, and to identify the characteristics of smokers of light cigarettes.
Methods. Mail survey in a population sample of 494 smokers and exsmokers in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1999.
Results. Participants were on average 40 years old, and 49% were men. They estimated that one would have to smoke two light cigarettes or four ultralight cigarettes in order to inhale the same amount of nicotine as that in one regular cigarette. Most participants (60%) answered that the risk of lung cancer was the same, but 27% answered that this risk was lower in smokers of light cigarettes than in smokers of regular cigarettes. The most frequent answer (41% of answers) to an open-ended question on the meaning of the number of milligrams of nicotine printed on cigarette packs was that this number indicated the nicotine content in cigarettes, rather than a machine-determined yield in smoke. In a multivariate model, smoking mild, light, or ultralight (vs regular) cigarettes was associated with females, a lower Fagerström dependence score, an intention to quit smoking, and an intention to decrease cigarette consumption.
Conclusions. Many smokers choose light cigarettes because they think that such cigarettes are safer or less addictive. The public should be further informed of the meaning and purpose of cigarette labels.
Effect of filter vent blocking on carbon monoxide exposure from selected lower tar cigarette brands
1999, Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior
Two studies were conducted to determine the effect of blocking filter vents on carbon monoxide (CO) exposure under ad lib smoking conditions. In Study 1, 12 daily cigarette smokers smoked cigarettes from the brands Now^® (1 mg tar by the FTC Method) and Marlboro Lights^® (10 mg tar) under each of two vent-blocking conditions (unblocked and finger blocked). Blocking filter vents with fingers led to an 85% increase in CO for the brand Now, but had no added effect on CO exposure from the Marlboro Lights. In Study 2, another 12 daily cigarette smokers smoked cigarettes from each of four additional brands: Carlton^® (1 mg tar), Now (2 mg tar), Virginia Slims Ultra-lights^® (5 mg tar), and Virginia Slims Lights^® (8 mg tar). Blocking filter vents with the lips caused all four brands to produce equal CO exposures. Blocking vents increased smokers’ exposure to CO by 239% when smoking Carltons and by 44% when smoking Nows. No significant increases in CO with blocking were found for either of the Virginia Slims brands. These results suggest that the degree to which a brand is ventilated determines whether that brand is susceptible to increased CO yields as a result of vent blocking.
Smokers' misperceptions of light and ultra-light cigarettes may keep them smoking
1998, American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Introduction: This study examined smokers’ understanding of the relative tar deliveries of Ultra-light, Light, and Regular cigarettes, reasons for smoking Ultra-light/Light cigarettes, and the likelihood of both quitting smoking and switching to Regular cigarettes if they came to learn that one Ultra-light/Light cigarette gave the same amount of tar as one Regular cigarette.
Design: Ten- to fifteen-minute random-digit-dialed, computer-assisted telephone interviews (CATI) were conducted with both a national probability sample (n = 788) and a state random sample (n = 266) of daily smokers over the age of 18.
Results: Less than 10% of smokers in the national sample and only 14% of smokers in the state sample knew that one Light cigarette could give the same amount of tar as one Regular cigarette. Less than 10% of smokers in the state sample knew that one Ultra-light cigarette could give the same amount of tar as one Regular cigarette. Thirty-two percent of the Light and 26% of the Ultra-light smokers in the national sample, and 27% of Light and 25% of Ultra-light smokers in the state sample, said they would be likely to quit smoking if they learned one Light/Ultra-light equaled one Regular.
Conclusion: Many Light and Ultra-light smokers are smoking these cigarettes to reduce the risks of smoking and/or as a step toward quitting. However, these smokers are unaware that one Ultra-light/Light cigarette can give them the same amount of tar and nicotine as one Regular cigarette. Many of the Ultra-light/Light smokers sampled in this study stated that they would be likely to quit if they knew this information. Mistaken beliefs about low-yield brands are reducing intentions to quit smoking.

View all citing articles on Scopus

View full text

Self-selected blocking of vents on low-yield cigarettes

Abstract

Addict. Behav.

Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol.

Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol.

J. Chromatogr.

Addict. Behav.

Addict. Behav.

Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav.

Saliva cotinine as a measure of smoking status in field settings

Am. J. Public Health

Reduced tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide exposure while smoking ultra-low- but not low-yield cigarettes

JAMA

Applicability of chi-square to 2 × 2 contingency tables with small expectd cell frequencies

Psychol. Bull.

An introduction to linear regression and correlation

Blocking the filter vents of cigarettes

JAMA