Does Your Tobacco Look Different Lately?

[vakkotaur]

As of June 22 US law changed and cigarette makers could no longer use terms like light, ultra light, medium, low, or mild. For most non-(cigarette)-smokers this change means little and might have been nothing more than an "Oh, that's interesting" article. For smokers, it has lead to some confusion, depending on preference. And even some non-smokers, those who work in places where cigarettes are sold, are affected as they have to not only translate between the old term that people are familiar with to the new terms or looks that are actually present, but also explain why the pack doesn't say "light" or such. To make it bit more confusing, there are a few different standards of what is done now, derived from earlier packaging, depending upon brand.

See this article or this one for details.

No big deal, right? It's just the same old stuff with differently labeled packs. Except some people are set in their ways and expectations. "It has to say 'Medium' on the box." gets awkward when that's now "Red Label" and someone simply cannot grasp that things have changed in name but it's exact same product. Or someone who buys softpacks (which sell slower than the hard packs or flip top boxes) still sees 'light' from the old stock that has yet to rotate out and then encounters 'blue' or 'gold' or such for the first time. "Don't you have lights?" And then one gets to explain why they are getting "golds" or "blues" instead now.

Comments

[kiwihunter8.livejournal.com]

Those articles were both very interesting. I've never been a smoker but I've had friends who religiously stuck to their Marlboro Lights thinking the health risks were lessened. I had no idea the tobacco companies were actually claiming that referred to flavor.

[vakkotaur.livejournal.com]

Well, that's what they're claiming now. Honesty is not to be expected. Or rather, a very select version of Exact Truth. Recall the congressional hearing where the cigarette company execs all said they don't add nicotine? They were telling the truth, but in an exact way. They did not add nicotine. They treated the tobacco with ammonia (I think) to make the nicotine already there more readily available or absorbed.

The first stab at dealing with the cancer findings of the 1950s was the filtered cigarette... and one of the first ones (if not the first) actually managed to make cigarettes more dangerous. The filter was asbestos. Oops. After many failed experiments the cigarette makers just gave up on a safe product. I can recommend a read of Iain Gately's book Tobacco: A Cultural History of How an Exotic Plant Seduced Civilization.

[hellboy78.livejournal.com]

Welcome to my own personal P.i.t.a working for Albertsons grocery store. We sell all of the above examples of cigarettes and I've encountered pretty much every nit-picky scenario you could imagine with said confusions. *facepalm* People are starting to learn though, for the most part, now that it's been a couple months since the initial change. But there are still a few who haven't gotten the memo, so to speak. Ah, well, eh?