Smokers Believe ‘Silver’, ‘Gold’ and ‘Slim’ Cigarettes Are Less Harmful

CigaretteScienceDaily reports:

Despite current prohibitions on the words ‘light’ and ‘mild’, smokers in Western countries continue falsely to believe that some cigarette brands may be less harmful than others. In fact, all conventional brands of cigarette present the same level of risk to smokers, including ‘mild’ and ‘low-tar’ brands.A study published in the journal Addiction polled over 8000 smokers from Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the USA. Approximately one-fifth of those smokers incorrectly believed that “some cigarette brands could be less harmful than others.” False beliefs were highest among US smokers.

Current research shows that smokers base their perceptions of risk on pack colour, believing that ‘silver’, ‘gold’ and ‘white’ brands are less harmful to smoke than ‘black’ or ‘red’ brands. The reason for those beliefs may lie in the history of cigarette branding. Cigarettes used to carry labels like ‘light’, ‘mild’, and ‘low tar’, and in some places they still do. But in over fifty countries cigarette manufacturers are no longer allowed to use those labels because they are misleading. In some cases, cigarette manufacturers simply changed their ‘light’ cigarettes to ‘silver’ and ‘gold’ brands — for example, Marlboro Lights has become Marlboro Gold. A significant percentage of smokers now seem to equate those colours with low-risk cigarettes.

Smokers in the study also revealed false beliefs that slim cigarettes are less harmful, cigarettes with harsh taste are riskier to smoke than smooth-tasking cigarettes, filters reduce risk, and nicotine is responsible for most of the cancer caused by cigarettes…

So much for smoking being sophisticated.  Read more here.

, , , ,

  • justagirl

    good thing i quit about a month ago. now if only they made pringles and milkshakes less harmful.

  • justagirl

    good thing i quit about a month ago. now if only they made pringles and milkshakes less harmful.

  • MrPINKi

    These studies are stupid and so are smokers who think that mild, light or any other as being better for you. Most smokers I know pick there brand on weather they want more or less smoke in the taste of it. I smoke milds because lights suck and reds are to damn thick. All of them have the same potential to give you cancer. I obviously live in cognative disonence. The people who come up with these reports and new laws need to be bitch slapped for waisting that much time and money on a needless law and even more needless report.

  • MrPINKi

    These studies are stupid and so are smokers who think that mild, light or any other as being better for you. Most smokers I know pick there brand on weather they want more or less smoke in the taste of it. I smoke milds because lights suck and reds are to damn thick. All of them have the same potential to give you cancer. I obviously live in cognative disonence. The people who come up with these reports and new laws need to be bitch slapped for waisting that much time and money on a needless law and even more needless report.

  • mrtastycakes

    Filters do reduce risk. Light cigarettes contain less tar and nicotine. The problem is that they end up being just as dangerous, as people smoke more “lights” to get a buzz. I also am inclined to believe that nicotine is responsible for all smoking-related illnesses. Who would smoke enough to get sick if cigarettes didn’t contain any pleasurable, addictive substances?

  • mrtastycakes

    Filters do reduce risk. Light cigarettes contain less tar and nicotine. The problem is that they end up being just as dangerous, as people smoke more “lights” to get a buzz. I also am inclined to believe that nicotine is responsible for all smoking-related illnesses. Who would smoke enough to get sick if cigarettes didn’t contain any pleasurable, addictive substances?

  • Threedinium

    Honestly, most of the people I know who smoke the brands labelled ‘lighter’ or ‘gold’ or whatever do it because of the taste and harshness. A marlboro red tastes different to a gold, golds are a much smoother draw and often get called the ‘girly’ choice whereas you’re obviously a ‘real man’ if you smoke reds. Especially with the filters torn off. Most of them don’t give a crap about the health risks of particular sub-brands of bands because hell, it’s still a damn cigarette, and the lungs, they still end up black.

  • Threedinium

    Honestly, most of the people I know who smoke the brands labelled ‘lighter’ or ‘gold’ or whatever do it because of the taste and harshness. A marlboro red tastes different to a gold, golds are a much smoother draw and often get called the ‘girly’ choice whereas you’re obviously a ‘real man’ if you smoke reds. Especially with the filters torn off. Most of them don’t give a crap about the health risks of particular sub-brands of bands because hell, it’s still a damn cigarette, and the lungs, they still end up black.

  • Mumu

    Somewhat unfair headline, should read “Some smokers believe…” 

    Though I would change it to “Idiots believe…”

  • Mumu

    Somewhat unfair headline, should read “Some smokers believe…” 

    Though I would change it to “Idiots believe…”