A Safer Cigarette Existed. Why'd It Fail?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 ส.ค. 2024
- Imagine a cigarette that didn’t cause cancer. Or lung damage or any sort of damage at all. At one point it existed and was going to come out. So, if this was a thing that was invented, why aren’t smokers using it today?
Around the 1950s a safer cigarette was in the process of being invented. This was shortly after tests were starting to emerge definitively linking cigarettes to lung disease. Companies realized they had to figure something out, before everyone found out smoking was slowly killing them. So one cigarette company, Ligette and Meyers set their sites on a goal that would change the smoking industry forever, or so they thought.
If you made it this far down the description, thanks for watching! We really appreciate it and would love if you could like and subscribe!
Sources:
www.pbs.org/wg...
www.simplyeliq...
en.wikipedia.o...
www.washington...
Galaxy Brain is a two person production that brings you the weirdest stories on the internet.
I say this as a daily weed smoker, there is no safe smoking. All smoking is dangerous and the mentally of “safer smoking” is being advertised to young teens every day. For me, the benefits of smoking weed far outweigh the risks but I am still aware that there are risks I am taking every time I light up. It’s true that I believe smoking weed is less damaging than smoking tobacco and that is why I avoid it (it also just doesn’t appeal to me). You can’t claim that there is no lung damage though.
They could have used the term "Light" cigarettes" for the safer alternative. Interesting.. I wonder if we could use this in our cigarettes and vapes now.
Absolutely.
Prior to this orig idea, I think they did Not have warning labels.
And this is how marketing became murderous.
Marketing had been murderous for decades before this incident. Just look at vegetable oil for example
@@VGLounge what? Vegetable oil? How?
@@HarishBabuM Vegetable oil is one of the most damaging substances put into the human body at scale. It originates as a synthetic industrial waste product. The big food corpos or paid off politicians will never admit it, but the facts are out there if you look th-cam.com/video/E94OMGSZqsg/w-d-xo.html
@@HarishBabuM
It was orig used in the Paint Industry until they went to cheaper petroleum.
The seed oi companies needed a new customer.
They launched it as health food, backed by science. (Junk Science).
@@monkeywkeys3916 you mean the refined cooking oil?
Sick video!!! Really well done, this channel is underrated!
Thank you!!! :D
Aw, such a smart products lost because of Greed
Why didn’t they just slip in the new, safer cigarettes instead of just announcing it?
Cost
that is what i'm thinking and promote it as elite product.
Population control
@@jesusborrego3270
Are you sure? The longer smokers live the more money the cigarette companies make
@@maenad1231 touché
Despite all the atrocities of the tobacco companies and all the evidence of health issues from smoking, people are still starting to smoke every day.
Because it's also a lifestyle choice. There are cancerous materials all around us. From chemicals/dyes used in clothing, to building materials that you live in. Hell wood is a carcinogen. Now don't get me wrong, tobacco companies greatly enhanced the nicotine levels to make their product more addictive to that of a natural leaf cigar but still - it's up do the individual.
when the world is shit anything that makes it more tolerable is appealing
That was amazing. Unforunately, they didn't allow them to produce, it could save millions of lives today.
Crazy!! Never imagined this happened!!
my solution to the is to hide the safe cigarettes in the normal cigarette boxes and have all the companies switch from normal to palladium
Why cant they try that now? Now with the internet all the information can be spread like wildfire.
Vaping took over and now cigarettes are a smaller market
@@josephdelacroix9798 i mean thats just true for the USA and few others. Come to Europe and I can assure ull see 50 people smoking a cigarette before seeing a single one vaping. There’s also Asia which are huge cigarette smokers (India, China etc…)
@@blahblahblah6898 Yep, lots of people are smoking outside USA where it declined already in the 80s.
There were also Marlboro heets, a sort of predecessor to the iqo's, but that failed.
dang. I was hoping to start smoking but after watching this I've decided against it.
MCSapling
Good for you m8 :)
The safest way to prevent an addiction is to never start!
I still want to light up a lucky.
Who stardet alredy wgat to do ? Just qiut is no iption for me.. i sershing for higest quality ciggarets all time since 2000 s
Even today, a new company - one not connected with what is known as "Big Tobacco" - could develop and use what Dr. Mold had investigated all those years ago. Heavy smokers like Helmut Schmidt and Estelle Winwood, even Bette Davis and Frank Sinatra, might still be around instead of dying young. My bet is that the federal government would stop them on some technicality.
I mean Betty Davis died at 81 I wouldn’t call that young
@@brooksmorris6918 That was sarcasm. Helmut Schmidt was 96; Ms. Winwood was over 100. Both were 3-pack a day smokers.
Ooooooooor.........after more testing they would have eventually found something wrong with the "safe" cigarettes too. Sometimes testing takes a while.
P.S. Frank Sinatra was 82 and Bette Davis was 81. Helmut Schmidt was 96! Estelle Winwood was 101! ...Is this some sort of "humor"?
Damn. I really want one of these cigarettes now… 🚬
Honey rose cigs are safer than real cigs
Y can't someone this day and age bring this out though ? I mean it's been 50 yrs times have changed this would be a game changer. Make a dupe that tastes like a areal cigarette but market it for those that want to quit...that's billions in revenue right there
Yes more revenue but if they market it as a way to quit there losing money by making people quit their product (Big tobacco for ya lol), and if they said it was healthier more kids would try it and they would smoke more because its not as bad just as they do nowadays with vapes. they would lose money while addicting kids.
thank u for smoking
0:46 ... so what we get drunk so what we smoke weed ... familiar
They should have marketed it as a smoother premium cigarette.
It might have worked if they created a sub-brand?
Still would have made all other cigarette manufacturers look bad, and L&M would have suffered the consequences. They'd much rather continue selling the poison and be friends.
PCAH reduction is listed on the diagram.
Poly-Cyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
The chemicals in most cigarettes are addictive. People wouldn’t want it without the gross stuff
Um, big deal, safety features are added to cars and other consumer goods all the time. Things improve all the time.
They could market it in a way doesn't hurt normal cigarettes as an elite or special version no one would notice.
Why don’t they just release it now? Everyone knows cigarettes are bad for you now, there’s no hiding it. So people would jump at the chance to buy a safer alternative. It wouldn’t have to be just one company either, they could release it without a copyright so all the cigarette companies could change to the safer version and still make money. But my guess is they still won’t do it because doing that would mean they were wrong and we were right. I guess their egos wouldn’t be able to handle that.
So why not do it now...?
Business won over the humanity. Good jooob. Good capitalism
Move in russia then kid, eh?
@@beflix8140 ...should I even tell you?
@@beflix8140 D-Do you mean the Soviet Union? Because Russia hasn't been communist for quite a few decades now
Besides, isn't it more American to fix the problems in the system ourselves rather than move somewhere else? I'm not American, but I was under the impression that the people there were a lot more hands-on
Embrace it my friend, f this world forever 6 6 6
Great Vid! 2000
I had no idea this was a thing. Excellent work!
I'm always looking for research that looks at the effects of smoking cannabis and there seems to be no correlation between smoking it and cancers (Head, neck and lung mentioned specifically as lacking statistically significant correlation when controlled for alcohol and tobacco use in a meta-analysis). Not to jump to conclusions, but I remain unconvinced that smoking cannabis is more than an irritant to one's lungs. The fact that there's scientific precedent that shows even tobacco smoke can be made less carcinogenic leads me to believe that smoked cannabis may... be good for you.(?) Studies suggest that smoking is the best method for pain relief too, so that'd be fortunate.
I know, I know. Saying certain smoke isn't bad for you sounds absolutely ridiculous. Just... why does it look exactly like that? My asthmatic friends smoke cannabis, but never rolling paper (unless it's hemp) or blunts because they're much too harsh. The plural of anecdotes isn't data, so I'm just waiting to find some evidence to shatter this idea.
Weed makes you lazy
@@AJazzz that joke was old in the 90's
@@Angel_Bob_ who said I’m joking
@@AJazzz it's 2021 and you're saying that you actually subscribe to the same stereotype as my grandparents... really makes ya think
@@Angel_Bob_ I’m a 22 year old Dutch national, I know a lot about weed
Tar is bad for you. So smoking anything is bad
The release would have buried other companies and caused investors to loose millions when adjusted for inflation is easy in the trillion mark and government agencies world wide couldn't let that happen
Capitalism, baby.
Still better than communism
@@I_Mark_Mills Ehhh, I prefer Socialism. Communism is alright too tho
@@QueenOfChaos1312 You're joking.
@@I_Mark_Mills naaaa not at all
@@I_Mark_Mills cringe
Top banana analysis and content
Don Draper could have solved this problem.
Blusiness Won Over Humanity
I made my own blend just like native Americans.... And it's free
did you grow the tobacco yourself? cause I doubt that was free lol.
@@lilrevo9651 I don't need tobacco. There are other things you cam smoke that are free and grow wild . But 6iu have to do your homework.
@@svelanikolova5776 Im confused why would you talk about a native american blend on a video about tobacco when your not talking about tobacco... 🤨
Also when you say free and wild tell me you aint just going outside n smoking every plant in sight 👀
@@lilrevo9651 it's tobacco plus herbs. Learn to think. They do all kinds of tobacco blends. Do some research
@@svelanikolova5776 BRUH YOU JUST SAID YOU DONT NEED TOBACCO YET ACT LIKE IM DUMB BRUH, also you say do some research which I have lmao, on all sorts of herbs because I'm gonna get into them, so miss me with that bro, it also depends on the region and area you live in bud, don't be coming at me for not being a mind reader dude. I cant tell what your smoking on you just said a blend which could be tobacco, weed, dagga, lotus all mixed or separate etc so your ''blend'' doesn't tell me shit but saying you don't need tobacco makes it sounds like you don't smoke it, then get mad when I don't know that like 🤔🤣
Today shows it wouldnt matter i mean theres so many safer alternatives but people still choose cigs
Ace!
Damn. At least now we have vape.
And weed if it’s legal
Um, remove the polonium maybe?
Why not vape? 95 less harmful that cigarette. Not cool enough?
Where'd you come up with 95%? What's the 5% consist of, and why not 100%?
Vaping looks silly
@@brendanjobe6895 E-cigarettes are 95% safer than traditional smoking, Public Health England has reported.
@@ultravaporbarinc I didn't ask for another assertion: I asked, "Why just 95%? And what does the remaining 5% consist of?" Certainly not lung cancer. Not COPD. Or did they just hate to say "Not harmful at all?" My vote goes to the latter.
@@brendanjobe6895 Real talk. Love how your relentlessly pursue the truth.
Smokeeennn
Why not vape? 95 less harmful that cigarette. Not cool enough?