Philip Morris' answer

Status
Not open for further replies.

TropicalBob

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jan 13, 2008
5,623
63
Port Charlotte, FL USA
Here's the newest from Philip Morris to help harried smokers:

Smoking bans around the world have relegated the world's smokers to seek refuge in their cigarettes outside, often times in the cold or rain. For those who'd still like to get in their nicotine fix, without having to spend as much time outside, Philip Morris is launching a new "snack size" mini cigarette - Marlboro Intense.

The mini cigarette allows smokers to smoke their cigarette much more quickly than regular sized ones, but it still delivers the same amount of nicotine as the full-size version.

The new Marlboro Intense cigarettes are only 7.2cm long, which is shorter than the standard 8.5cm cigarette. It will be first tested in Turkey, but with more than 50 countries around the world now enforcing smoking bans, Philip Morris believes that they may be on to something. So it may not be long before we see these snack-sized cigarettes in the States.

How likely are those who buy the Marlboro Intense mini-cigarettes to simply just start smoking more of them because of the psychology of their small size?

The article was from a press release in a Cleveland newspaper. I noted this response and I believe this is the guy SJ quoted on dangers of nicotine alone.

As a slowly but ever increasing percentage of nicotine smokers transfer their dependency to vastly cleaner nicotine delivery devices (GSK consultants have reported that 37% of nicotine gum users are chronic long-term users of at least 6 months), and as new less destructive devices enter the market, I predict we'll see increasing discussion given to actually banning the world's dirtiest drug delivery device, the cigarette.

The problem is that once you've done "smoke" it's hard to accept slower, less precise delivery. Within 8-10 seconds of a puff, we nicotine addicts could tell whether or not we needed to take another puff or had smoked too much. It isn't easy adjusting as you wait what seems like minutes for oral nicotine to penetrate the lining of the mouth, enter the bloodstream and do their magic inside the brain's dopamine reward pathways.

Marlboro Intense highlights growing concerns regarding smokers having less time to smoke and thus smoking each cigarette far more intensely than ever. What are the long-term health consequences of smoking harder, faster, deeper and holding the smoke longer than normal? It may be decades before we develop a full understanding but it doesn't take millions in research to allow us to predict that the findings won't be pretty.

John R. Polito
Editor WhyQuit

marlboro.jpg
 

Oliver

ECF Founder, formerly SmokeyJoe
Admin
Verified Member
Quite right Bob, that is the guy I quoted before.

You know until relatively recently you could still buy an old style cigarette called Embassy Filter in the Uk. I'm pretty sure they were about the same size as these new Marlboros - so they are a kind of throw back really.

Also, I've noticed over the past few years loads of new Marlboro products - in the EU tobacco advertising is banned entirely, and I'm fairly sure the ploy is to get as many smokers talking about their products as possible.

Another thing I noticed was at a music festival in Scotland about 4 years ago - to buy tobacco you had to use vending machines that had been installed in the beer tents, but you couldn't insert the money yourself, oh no! You had to give it to one of two attractive girls to do it for you! Needless to say, the girls were dressed head to toe in the familiar Marlboro colour set, neatly circumnavigating the ban.

Unfortunately for the girls, the machines run out quite early on the last day so they had to suffer the opprobrium of tired, drunken, nicotine-starved festival goers for the rest of the afternoon.
 

TropicalBob

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jan 13, 2008
5,623
63
Port Charlotte, FL USA
Marlboro is their moneymaker. The first American snus from them was Marlboro Snus. And the name is plastered on race cars where it's not illegal for a camera to show the brand name.

You remember the supposed benefit of "light" filter-tipped cigarettes? Machine smoking yielded less of the hazardous tar and nicotine. But in the real world, smokers inhaled lights more frequently, took the smoke deeper, held it longer and in fact got a deadly dose equal to regular cigarettes - or worse. This will be the same. Smoke 'em fast, deep and right down to the filter!

Meanwhile, Philip Morris uses less tobacco to make these, thus saving money, and will likely sell more packs as addicts chainsmoke these on breaks.

Marlboro 72s, as they're called, have been marketed in the U.S. before. Shorter time to smoke 'em. These are the same length, but not the same product. The "advantage" of Marlboro Intense is that this 72mm size packs the same nicotine as the longer cigarettes. It's no secret how tobacco is processed here: All of the nicotine is washed out, then flavoring and nicotine in carefully measured amounts are added back to the final product. That way, your Marlboro always tastes the same and packs the same punch.

Now they've punched it up with added nicotine.

I expect Congressional outrage any day now from a senator seeking re-election.
 

Oliver

ECF Founder, formerly SmokeyJoe
Admin
Verified Member
Right, I get it now. Sick b@&*£")s.

Yep, it'll be exactly same as the lights. Possibly worse: If you are habituated to taking a certain number of puffs then stubbing out, you'll try to take the same number as previously and, as you say, end up smoking the .....
 

EricD

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 30, 2008
79
0
chicago, IL
This is the kind of mentality that has an outward appearance of doing something in good faith to help consumers, but in reality does nothing more than perpetuate the same problem. We see this same mentality in other companies who refuse to change such as the auto industry. They make claims of fantastic MPG vehicles and make beautiful commercials showing people driving past gas stations and snickering at the schmucks at the pump. When in reality, the cars only get a nominal increase in fuel efficiency, far less than what is possible. For example, a car getting 32 highway is really not much more than 25, when you consider that we can do 60-100 with current technology. They just can't kick their old production habits and therefore make propaganda to convince us they are being "revolutionary." The shorter cigarette is the exact same thing. Just like there are people retrofitting older cars to electric and there are small companies starting to produce cars the WE really need, people are moving off cigarettes to alternatives that WE really want. It bothers me that the corporate mentality is to squeeze the consumer for every last bit of gullibility before moving on to what is really wanted by consumers. Can you imagine if Phillip morris, legat & meyers, or reynolds got into the e-cigarette business. The quality would be outstanding. Instead we have to rely on foreign (chinese) companies who are willing to take a chance and produce what we want. Its a shame that the companies that have the name recognition and market power to make change mainstream choose to avoid it at all costs, even to the detriment of their own company - eg. GM. Personally, I agree with TB about the 72 mm cig. It will do nothing more than increase smoking frequency and intensity. I assume the shorter cigarettes will be priced the same because they are "more convenient." So in fact, they may be selling a smaller product, for the same price, that doesn't last as long. Brilliant. I don't get it. Sorry about this rant, but I observe this kind of behavior by companies, as you probably do to, every day and it really bugs me. Interesting maneuver by PM, just like the heatbar. lol. But as the CEO of ATT put it when asked about net neutrality, "we have to get a return on this capital." :twisted:
 

Perfectionist

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 22, 2008
175
0
London
It's natural for any company to be as "efficient" as possible ..... which basically means trying to make as much money as possible from doing as little work as possible !

There is also the aspect that they will "milk" the consumer for as long as they can using their old products/technology ..... and when they have squeezed out the last drop of profit ..... will go ahead and launch their next improved version to much acclaim and popularity !

Why would the Big Tobacco firms drop their present money makers when they still have a huge market ?
 

TropicalBob

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jan 13, 2008
5,623
63
Port Charlotte, FL USA
No ... they're bas*&#ds. Making money is fine. Conduct bordering on criminal is not.

Part of the hateful backlash today at all things tobacco is based on the shameful deceit and lies from Big Tobacco in years past. The huge court awards in the States are not based on actual damages, but a punitive punishment for the arrogant conduct and lying testimony before Congress of those selling the product. They killed -- with full knowledge -- the willing addicts they served for personal and corporate profit. My murder would not be legal even if I begged you to pull the trigger. Aside from white shirts and 7-figure salaries, how are they better than the .... pusher on the street corner?
 

Perfectionist

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 22, 2008
175
0
London
TropicalBob said:
No ... they're bas*&#ds. Making money is fine. Conduct bordering on criminal is not.
I agree, in fact I "over-agree" with you as I think ALL Capitalist business's can be classed as criminal !

Part of the hateful backlash today at all things tobacco is based on the shameful deceit and lies from Big Tobacco in years past.
I don't think so ..... it's just that Tobacco has lost it's "glamour" and become politically incorrect ..... and most of all it's market has matured ..... being healthy is now the latest "fashion" as dictated by the Media and Consumer Industry and that is where the growth in profits is coming from ..... Bottled Water has replaced the Cigarette as the sign of being "cool" and having disposable income .....

The huge court awards in the States are not based on actual damages, but a punitive punishment for the arrogant conduct and lying testimony before Congress of those selling the product.
Which is why they deserved it ..... a lesson to every other Industry out there (although I believe the Tobacco Companies eventually managed to reduce the payouts quite considerably?) ..... in the end it was more a win for the litigious in society than a shining example of justice .....

They killed -- with full knowledge -- the willing addicts they served for personal and corporate profit. My murder would not be legal even if I begged you to pull the trigger.
Be honest T.Bob ..... even if they had been honest and if you had known how harmful it was ..... you would have still carried on smoking ..... just like you probably did until e-cigs arrived !

They have killed nobody ..... they merely supplied a demand ..... and did what (they perceived at the time) they had to do to maintain their business ..... just like any and every other company on Earth would do .....

Aside from white shirts and 7-figure salaries, how are they better than the .... pusher on the street corner?
They aren't any better ..... and neither is ANY other salesman selling ANY other product !

What harm does the .... pusher actually do ? No more than the Insurance Company that doesn't pay out on a devious technicality ..... or an Automobile Manufacturer that cuts corners in safety to lower costs and boost profits ..... or the Pharmaceutical Company that doesn't develop drugs for diseases that kill millions, because it sees most of the victims as unable to afford the treatment ..... or the Diamond Dealers who maintain the high value of their product by cornering the market and restricting the supply ..... etc etc etc .....

Big Tobacco is not at fault here ..... the blame lies at the feet of Capitalism = Profit & Greed = Human Nature .....
 

TropicalBob

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jan 13, 2008
5,623
63
Port Charlotte, FL USA
Wow. Usually only people my age are this cynical.

Actually, when I smoked, I desperately wanted to believe the lies of the tobacco industry. Nicotine wasn't addictive. I wouldn't die of a smoking-related disease. Etc. I had indeed read the Surgeon General's report (I'm a lifetime journalist and health reporter). I knew. But when you practice something as addictive as smoking cigarettes, you seek a crack in the data. Big Tobacco helped me believe the data was flawed. They testified under oath, after all. Would they lie under oath? Er .. yes.

I won't argue the ethics of business. I'm not a businessman concerned primarily with the bottom line. My experience is that there are good and bad corporations, just as in most things. Big Tobacco fell to the dark side years ago.

What the heck. I might smoke again. But they will always be bas%&)%ds for lying to us about the product they peddled so veyr profitably. They killed. With full knowledge of what they were doing with lies and profits.
 

Perfectionist

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 22, 2008
175
0
London
Only the naive are not cynical ..... so I suppose you mentioning age is quite valid !

I still don't consider Big Tobacco as being any more ".......ly" than pretty much any other Industry ..... but I do think those (like yourself!) who insist on blaming them for the actions they did by their very own free will, are simply finding a vent for their anger ..... instead of taking responsibility themselves !

I see it no different to the Cell Phone Industry at present ..... there are numerous studies which show that mobile phones do have a harmful affect and increase the chances of getting a Brain Tumour etc ..... however for every one study that does show a correlation, there are a dozen which conclude the opposite ..... no different to Tobacco studies so long ago .....

The "truth" will reveal itself as the decades pass and more data is gathered and analysed ..... but in the end it is pretty obvious to anyone that these new technological marvels "could" very well pose a distinct risk to our health ..... yet the growth in popularity of these products is unstoppable, and even becoming common amongst children with the full approval of their parents !

The Cell Phone Industry is one of the biggest in the World ..... I have no doubt that we will see a day in the future where the Heads of these very Rich and Powerful Companies put their greedy hands on a Bible and lie through their teeth !

Personally I believe it is basic human nature to take risks ..... whether it be an addiction to Nicotine or an addiction to gadgetry convenience and a more productive lifestyle ..... if I were to lose the gamble and suffer Cancer in 20 years time, I for one will not blame anybody but myself ..... but I fully appreciate that I will be in a minority !
 

Perfectionist

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 22, 2008
175
0
London
Many people today cannot live without their Phones ..... just like we cannot live without Nicotine !

An addiction does not have to be based on an external drug ..... it can form from things as diverse as Gambling, Food, Shopping and of course (everyones favourite!) Sex !

It's the "internal" chemicals that the body produces itself, that can often be the basis of many addictions ..... whose to say that owning and using the latest Mobile Phones doesn't give many people a techno-hit ?!
 

TropicalBob

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jan 13, 2008
5,623
63
Port Charlotte, FL USA
You know, technically, you're right.

addiction (-dkshn)
1. A physical or psychological need for a habit-forming substance, such as a drug or alcohol. In physical addiction, the body adapts to the substance being used and gradually requires increased amounts to reproduce the effects originally produced by smaller doses.
2. A habitual or compulsive involvement in an activity, such as gambling.

I'm just cranky enough to reject that second definition -- and it surely is second. That's been added to satisfy a lot of people who can't control personal behaviors. "I'm addicted to food." No you're not. "I'm addicted to speed." Not unless it's the drug you refer to. "I'm addicted to sex." Yeh, so are we all. Welcome to the club.

But I see where you're coming from when you write of the body's chemical release. Chocolate releases chemicals very similar to those I get from absorbing nicotine. So if I eat chocolate compulsively, I might become addicted to my own chemicals, not the chocolate.

That doesn't satisfy the definition of addiction I learned years ago, however. But times change. I understand why some people would embrace the second definition. Makes 'em feel good. People don't have bad habits anymore. They're "addicted." Poor things need treatment.

"When did you realize you were spending too much on ringtones?"

:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread