Wednesday, January 4, 2012

At last, a harm reduction cigarette?

Filter additives reduce free radicals

Researchers from Cornell University in New York say they have demonstrated that adding the natural antioxidant lycopene and grape seed extracts to a cigarette filter can significantly reduce the amount of cancer-causing free radicals passing through the filter.

What do we suppose that our friends at the FDA will do with this pertinent information that could indisputably save 10s of millions of lives, both here and abroad? ...and what of the numerous other studies that have exhibited promising results in the quest to counter-act the carcinogenic free radicals in tobacco smoke? There is more than one path to harm reduction. The quit or die approach is quite literally killing people. I don't know about you, but it's time for a change.

Let us gather collectively for once by telling the prohibitionists, the pharmaceutical lobbyists, the do-gooder politicians and their crony (lord, I am soooooo cynical) bureaucrat friends over at tobacco control to take a long walk off of a short pier (or over to the un-employment line). Let's cut the funding for the Neo Bishops of (counter) Do-gooderism and instead invest in a few good and honorable scientists for a change. Now that would breathe (pun intended) fresh life into the very definition of progress itself; or perhaps more accurately, return it to the vernacular representation of free and independent thought, without which the word itself cannot exist.

It is refreshing to see that there are researchers out there conducting such studies. In my humble opinion, these people are heroes. I sincerely hope that they get all of the funding that they deserve. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't object to my tobacco taxes going towards harm reduction research. Tobacco taxes, after all, should go towards benefiting smokers, not greedy bureaucrats. Science would reap tremendous benefits as well, and who would want to slow down the progress of science? Stupid question, I know.

BTW, here's the abstract to the actual study, published by Journal of Visualized Experiments (JoVE)-


  1. If only Dr Gio Batta Gori had been allowed by the American Cancer Insitute to develop the safe cigarette then we wouldn't be here now. The ACI wanted people to get cancer, I think, to keep them going. What other explanation could there be for going straight for tobacco eradication rather than harm reduction 40 years ago?

  2. I don't know Pat..... Follow the $$$ (tax revenue ,pharma products, etc..) is the best explanation that I can conjure up.


There was an error in this gadget