Less cancerous but more addictive cigarettes.

Alright, so I have a friend entering uni soon and she said she wants to study business.
She's interested in running a business that makes a new brand of cigarettes, one that is less cancerous, but more addictive.

All details aside (whether or not it's possible, etc.), we got into an argument on whether or not it's horrible (which I think it is).

Do you think cigarettes that are definitely less cancerous but way more addictive than the current ones is alright?

 

The way I see it, she's actually leaving things as is. Inversely proportional.

Cancerous + Less addictive = Death

Less cancerous + More addictive = Death

The only thing she'd be doing is getting more-much more- money. They'd definitely buy more. Yet, let's say 5 of your friend's cigarettes, cause the same cancerous effect as 2 and a half of the normal ones. Since it's more addictive, people would buy twice the amount of normal cigarettes, thus being just as destructive as normal cigarettes.

 

No, she's not making things any better. Even if they are less cancerous by making them more addictive you drag more people into the downward spiral that is a nicotine addiction. I'm talking about experimental youngsters who might otherwise have been spared from the dependence on nicotine, and people who are trying to quit.
Your friend is either immoral, incredibly ignorant or both.

 

No, it isn't any better. Your friend is just trying to hide behind a mask and feel a little better about herself. Not cool.

 

Don't the two occur at a similar rate anyway?
I mean, isn't it just like halving the potency of a poison but simply doubling the dosage your taking of it? It shouldn't make any odds and would theoretically mean that addicts buy double the amount meaning cigarette companies gain a greater revenue?
So your friend is either heartless or a true business person. I think a little of both.

 

If the cigarette is less cancerous but more addictive...doesn't that mean that she would smoke them way more than regular cigarettes? Which means she has the exact same chance of getting cancer because both factors cancel each other out?

 

That's ridiculous. I'd say exactly what you said to your friend. I guess she has to realise that smoking is a bad thing no matter what you do to alter the taste of the cigarette. I know the images on packs of cigarettes are exagerrated a little, but why would anyone want that to happen to them? Your friend should continue to study business, but you should tell her again that the cigarette idea is immoral and that she should put her ambition to better use.

 

hmm.

Well one of the things I want to point out is that addictiveness, even if whatever you're addicted to does not give you cancer, is still not good.

When people go to rehab and have interventions for being addicted to certain drugs, its not just because the drug itself is hurting the person. A lot of the time, being addicted to something hurts your relationships with people, your ability to do work properly, and a ton of other issues.

Its true, no one likes cancer. And eliminating it completely from cigarettes would definitely be a good thing...but more addictive? No, this is definitely not "alright."

Also cigarettes have plenty of toxins in them that may not induce cancer, but still kill you.

 

By god, you can't really be arguing whether or not it's worse if it's still bad. Granted it'll kill them slower, if it'll be even harder to quit than it's just plain bad! I know from experience how bad a mental dependency is, but the biological dependency caused by drugs is even worse and your friend wants to make it even more addictive? That's just madness to me, since a cigarette is a cigarette and it's poison.

 

That's just ... annoying. If she wants to make cigarettes less cancerous and more addictive then:

1. She obviously doesn't know how they work.
2. The whole ratio thing people have already talked about.
3. That there are much more deadly things in Cigarettes for example Arsenic and Syanide.
4. She is a cold, heartless, *****.

A reputable company shouldn't make its foundations on something that will ultimately kill you. Do you see any new tobacco companies being founded? No. That's because all of the current ones stem way back into the roots of the American colonisation. It's a terrible hard sector to get into. Plus, people don't care about how cancerous something is, they just want the nicotine, that's why people smoke. Smokers (and I know this) get into the habit of buying a certain type of cigarette and continue to buy it, not deviating. You don't get people who change the type they smoke, the only people who she'd get would be new smokers and that is fairly small with with the falling number of people smoking thanks to ad campaigns et al. Then, she enters the realm of diminishing returns. In addition, making somthing more addictive won't work because the thing that does the addiction bit is the nicotine and the only way to make it more addictive is to add more nicotine but in doing so, she's have to add more tobacco and in doing so make it more cancerous which defeats her aims.

In short, no. It isn't a good idea.

 

Of course not. Smoking is horrible period. Who ever still does should stop before you face an early grave. My grandmother is dying from having COPD and it breaks my heart watching her struggle to breathe with even oxygen. It pains me knowing that others are throwing away their lives just for a fix and you could say that, because smoking is addictive once you begin. Not only does it kill you, but it's expensive, and it puts up a huge red flag about hygiene. Any kind of cigarette is harmful whether it has less nicontine or not.

 

Sorry but, I don't think that is the best thing ever. Maybe a less cancerous cigarette is okay, but more addictive can still lead to death anyhow, what would it matter?​

 

i don't see it as a problem. the way i see it, people who smoke cigarettes are already addicted anyway and probably wouldn't change their habits (well, maybe they'll buy more) much.

 

if they're more addictive, people will buy more, thus canceling out the "less cancerous" statement.