NationStates Jolt Archive

Every once in awhile my dad would order a box of Cigars, from the Rodriguez Cigar Factory. That got me to thinking, are cigars better than cigarette because they don't have the chemicals in them that cigarette does, or is it vice versa? Maybe they both just suck? What do yall think? There will be no poll.

Cigars are better, but they take so long to smoke. So cigarettes are more practical for people who need to get back to work or get back inside the house to put the kids to bed.
Healthwise, I'm not sure, cigars must be worth 10 cigarettes in terms of strength, but perhaps the added chemicals in cigs do make them worse long-term. Who cares about dying at 80 or living to 110 as a vegetable anyway?

Cigars: Same chemicals. No filter. Smoke goes in mouth, not in lungs. Smoked primarily for taste, nicotine addiction is secondary. Generally smoked slower, not inhaled as deeply. Thus less harmful to smoker. Size and length of smoking time increases second-hand smoke hazard.

Both are bad for you.

However, cigars don't have the filters so they are "better" for you.

I like a good cigar from time to time.

Both are pretty disgusting and unhealthy in my opinion, but I'd have to say cigars smell a lot better than cigarettes so I'd go with them.

I've gotten incredibly sick every time I've smoked, they both suck.

I may smoke my first cigar when my niece or nephew arrive.

I should admit that after smoking both, I like cigars better. And I don't cough up nearly as much goo after smoking a cigar as when I smoke a half-pack. (Assuming 1 cigar=ten ciggies)

what's better, drano or lafite rothschild?


dumb question.

I should admit that after smoking both, I like cigars better. And I don't cough up nearly as much goo after smoking a cigar as when I smoke a half-pack. (Assuming 1 cigar=ten ciggies)

That's probably because you dont inhale cigar smoke.

what's better, drano or lafite rothschild?


dumb question.

Yummmmmmmm, Drano!

what's better, drano or lafite rothschild?


dumb question.

Drano of course! :D

At about 14.50 USD each, padron anniversario 1926 maduro cigars are quite a bargain for what you get.

I prefer cigarettes

Every once in awhile my dad would order a box of Cigars, from the Rodriguez Cigar Factory. That got me to thinking, are cigars better than cigarette because they don't have the chemicals in them that cigarette does, or is it vice versa? Maybe they both just suck? What do yall think? There will be no poll.

Cigars. You usually don't inhale Cigars.

Also, some cigars are great.

Hey, what's better; sulfuric acid, or hydrochloric acid? :rolleyes:

Depends on how many cigarettes, how you smoke, and how frequently you smoke.

I'm saying cigars. There's no point smoking cigarettes... they're just.... horrible; with cigars you've got a range of tastes, it last much longer, and you're hardly likely to smoke a pack a day. :p

Hey, what's better; sulfuric acid, or hydrochloric acid? :rolleyes:

It's pretty obvious that hydrochloric acid is better :P.

Well, cigars can be emptied out and filled with chronic. Cigarettes cannot.

Cigars = 1
Cigarettes = 0


Blunts, FTW! :D

I don't smoke, but if I were, I would smoke cigars or cigarillos.

cigarettes have formaldehit, hydrogencyanide ,nitrozamin and benzen + similar chemicals to make it to over 1000 types. Cigarettes have cigarette paper which is a killer by itself alone.

Natural cigars and Natural tobacco, handrolled, doesnt have any of these. Aromatic cigars, being processed may have some chemicals in them but not as bad as cigarettes.

Cigars: Same chemicals. No filter. Smoke goes in mouth, not in lungs. Smoked primarily for taste, nicotine addiction is secondary. Generally smoked slower, not inhaled as deeply. Thus less harmful to smoker. Size and length of smoking time increases second-hand smoke hazard.

handrolled cigars with natural wrappers and long filler & binder do not have added chemicals. They are just aged tobacco leaves.

Also- the average cigar smoker DOESNT inhale the smoke into his lungs.

Its more about flavor and relaxation, not a nicotine fix.

I smoke cigars. I cant stand cigarettes.

As for health I wouldn't know enough to have an opinion either way, but I have to say a cigar smells so much better.

Cigars haven't sold out. Cigarettes have. That and they just look better on Groucho Marx.

It's pretty obvious that hydrochloric acid is better :P.

Really, sulfuric tastes like rotten eggs, but a good hydrochloric ... ah, such a lovely bouquet!

cigarettes have formaldehit, hydrogencyanide ,nitrozamin and benzen + similar chemicals to make it to over 1000 types. Cigarettes have cigarette paper which is a killer by itself alone.

Natural cigars and Natural tobacco, handrolled, doesnt have any of these. Aromatic cigars, being processed may have some chemicals in them but not as bad as cigarettes.

All those nasty chemicals are found in plant smoke, they don't add them special to cigarettes...

Hey, what's better; sulfuric acid, or hydrochloric acid? :rolleyes:

HCl by far. Trust me. I'm a chemist.

cigarettes have formaldehit, hydrogencyanide ,nitrozamin and benzen + similar chemicals to make it to over 1000 types. Cigarettes have cigarette paper which is a killer by itself alone.

Natural cigars and Natural tobacco, handrolled, doesnt have any of these. Aromatic cigars, being processed may have some chemicals in them but not as bad as cigarettes.

Hand rolled and natural tobacco have all those chemicals, plus all the great goodness that would be lost through hygiene. This is why I don't buy organic crap.

The last time I smoked a rolled cigarette, I hallucinated on and off for about 36 hours. (Though I did not roll it myself, as you probably guessed)

Cigars.

Really, sulfuric tastes like rotten eggs, but a good hydrochloric ... ah, such a lovely bouquet!

Given equimolar concentrations of hydrochloric and sulfuric, the sulfuric acid will kill you faster.

Given equimolar concentrations of hydrochloric and sulfuric, the sulfuric acid will kill you faster.

And flouroantimonic acid is better than all the above.

Is there any real difference between pipe tobacco and cigar tobacco?
Do you inhale the smoke from a pipe?


Just wondering.

neither is good for your health. to quote the phillip morris ad "there is no such thing as a safe cigarette".

nicotine is poison. tobacco is poison. it doesnt matter if you smoke, chew it or just put it between your cheek and gum, its bad for you.

in theory you can smoke an ocasional cigar, in practice, nicotine is addictive and the process of "learning to smoke" can lead to you being addicted to it. some people, maybe YOU, have a very hard time breaking or even managing a nicotine addiction.

i would avoid both of them. "natural" is meaningless when you are dealing with a poisonous substance.

neither is good for your health. to quote the phillip morris ad "there is no such thing as a safe cigarette".

nicotine is poison. tobacco is poison. it doesnt matter if you smoke, chew it or just put it between your cheek and gum, its bad for you.

in theory you can smoke an ocasional cigar, in practice, nicotine is addictive and the process of "learning to smoke" can lead to you being addicted to it. some people, maybe YOU, have a very hard time breaking or even managing a nicotine addiction.

i would avoid both of them. "natural" is meaningless when you are dealing with a poisonous substance.

You have a point. I'm lucky-I dont seem to have any weakness for nicotine or caffiene.
I smoke a few cigars a week during the nicer months-conditions and time permitting. Then I'll go all winter without one.
I also drink coffee, but I 'll drink a pot a day all winter and stop in the summer.

with me, it seems more the mood I'm in.

I find cigar smoke less offensive than cigarette smoke.

HCl by far. Trust me. I'm a chemist.

Yeah, H2SO4 will boil you while it's eating you.

Is there any real difference between pipe tobacco and cigar tobacco?
Do you inhale the smoke from a pipe?


Just wondering.

A lot of pipe tobacco is 'aromatic,' which means it tastes and smells sweet. This is achieved by treating it in a sweet liquor. Sometimes aromatics are treated in honey, sometimes different fruit.

The best pipe tobacco though is 'english,' which is made from Latikia, smoked tobacco.

Not smoked as in burned, but smoked as in kept over the smoke of a fire.

Latikia tastes extremely good, but the stench it makes when you burn it runs the gambit from filthy stinking feet to "a carpet that has been in a whore house since the 1970s being boiled."

Neither are inhaled.

Cigars are made from pure tobacco leaves that are left to ferment then rolled up.

You try to put hash in a cigarette and then tell me which is better.

Im curious if vaporizing tobacco makes for a far "healthier" smoke? Ive read no studies have been done on it since its a fairly new technology.

Im curious if vaporizing tobacco makes for a far "healthier" smoke? Ive read no studies have been done on it since its a fairly new technology.

Vapourizers are used for pot and for tobacco, they are healthier because they don't produce smoke, they merely cause the THC to boil out.

No smoke = no organic toxins, no carcinogenes.

Blunts, FTW! :D

lol damn right (though its cheaper to just buy bluntwraps from a good headshop *nods*)

lol damn right (though its cheaper to just buy bluntwraps from a good headshop *nods*)

How very true. :)

Every once in awhile my dad would order a box of Cigars, from the Rodriguez Cigar Factory. That got me to thinking, are cigars better than cigarette because they don't have the chemicals in them that cigarette does, or is it vice versa? Maybe they both just suck? What do yall think? There will be no poll.

probably cigars are better because they don't have all the additives the cigarettes do. at least the proper one won't. and they taste better. but there's probably more of a risk of mouth cancer from them, but probably less of a risk of lung cancer.

Vapourizers are used for .. tobacco, they are healthier..
No smoke = no organic toxins, no carcinogenes.

Cite? The question is how do you know what the contents of the steam coming off tobacco leafs contain? Is it just nicotine? It still must contain many chemicals because it has a "varied taste" but im just guessing. Are the only chemicals that are carcinogenic that way because flame is applied to them or are some of the toxins carcenogenic (sp?) in its "steamed not burned" form? Is it just 400 chemicals instead of 4000? Are only 200 of those cancerous? etc...

Blunts, FTIdioticKidsWhoThinkThey'reInDaHood! :D

Fixed for accuracy.

Cite? The question is how do you know what the contents of the steam coming off tobacco leafs contain? Is it just nicotine? It still must contain many chemicals because it has a "varied taste" but im just guessing. Are the only chemicals that are carcinogenic that way because flame is applied to them or are some of the toxins carcenogenic (sp?) in its "steamed not burned" form? Is it just 400 chemicals instead of 4000? Are only 200 of those cancerous? etc...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporizer

Read, be enlightened. :)

The most recent study (2006), performed by researchers at Leiden University, tested the high-end Volcano vaporizer with preparations of pure THC and found that:

Our results show that with the Volcano a safe and effective cannabinoid delivery system seems to be available to patients. The final pulmonal uptake of THC is comparable to the smoking of cannabis, while avoiding the respiratory disadvantages of smoking.

When using plant material (crude flower tops), besides THC, several other cannabinoids as well as a range of other plant components including terpenoids were detected in the plant material. However, using pure THC in the Volcano, no degradation products (delta-8-THC (D8-THC), cannabinol (CBN), or unknown compounds) were detected by HPLC analysis. Also, a substantially larger fraction of the THC was delivered to the vapor by using pure THC.

A 2004 NORML-MAPS study [1] found that the aforementioned Volcano Vaporizer was "remarkably clean", its vapor consisting of 89% THC with about 6% of cannabinol (CBN), another cannabinoid. The remaining 5% consisted of small amounts of three other components: one suspected cannabinoid relative, one suspected PAH, and caryophyllene, a fragrant oil in cannabis and other plants. In contrast over 111 different components appeared in the gas of the combusted smoke, including a half dozen known PAHs. Non-cannabinoids accounted for as much as 88% of the total gas content of the smoke. The study used cannabis plant material containing 4.15% THC, and used Gas chromatography and mass spectrometry to analyze the vapor for a wide range of toxins, focusing on pyrene and other polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons.


Fixed for accuracy.

Except I'm about as G as a collection of Forgotten Realms rulebooks. :(

Thank you Soviet however, i dont recall reading that marijuanna strongly leads to increased cancer rates smoked in any form let alone vaporizer vs other forms. Obviously tobacco contains no THC. Are you aware of a similar study involving tobacco and potential for filtering carcenogenic materials? I guess what im asking is..is this "the safer cigarette"?

Thank you Soviet however, i dont recall reading that marijuanna strongly leads to increased cancer rates smoked in any form let alone vaporizer vs other forms. Obviously tobacco contains no THC. Are you aware of a similar study involving tobacco and potential for filtering carcenogenic materials? I guess what im asking is..is this "the safer cigarette"?

It doesn't work by filtering, it works by not making them, regardless of what plant material you're smoking.

It doesn't work by filtering, it works by not making them, regardless of what plant material you're smoking.

Your not understanding what im saying. Tobacco causes cancer with ingredients it contains, smoked or otherwise. This is why chew tobacco users get lip cancer despite the fact that the tobacco they use never burns. We also understand that some chemicals are indeed lifted by the steam. What chemical composition is this steam? Does it contain some of the very chemicals that give people lip cancer despite the fact it isnt burned? Does it leave these dangerous chemicals behind and becomes a healthier nicotine injection device much in the same way its a THC injection device for marijuanna? Is there any data on this?

Your not understanding what im saying. Tobacco causes cancer with ingredients it contains, smoked or otherwise. This is why chew tobacco users get lip cancer despite the fact that the tobacco they use never burns. We also understand that some chemicals are indeed lifted by the steam. What chemical composition is this steam? Does it contain some of the very chemicals that give people lip cancer despite the fact it isnt burned? Does it leave these dangerous chemicals behind and becomes a healthier nicotine injection device much in the same way its a THC injection device for marijuanna? Is there any data on this?

I've said I can find, and all I know, sorry. :(