Thats great, now Cigars are gonna get even more expensive. I mean the SG report in the 60s didnt link cigars to cancer, they only state smoking wasnt as safe as once though. To this day there is no formal linkage to tobacco smoke and cancer.

forty-five years after the first Surgeon General's report linking cigarette smoking to lung cancer

Guess what you will also see... a massive upswing in the trade of illegal cigarettes by organized crime. Nature abhors a vacuum and when you make something hard to get that people want, "enterprising individuals" will find a way to get it to them.

Apparently learning from history is not a strong suit of the American legislative body. Sticking fingers in the holes will not hold back the sea.

i MEAN what is cigars have for ingrediants? 100 percent tobacco that isnt even treated with man made pesticide and then fermented which detoxes the leaf and the only additive that is added is an organic adhesive! What is there in a cigar that is harmful? Nothing. Infact the most recent study shows Cigar smoke in moderation fights lung cancer and heart disease.

Some of the toxins or irritants in cigar smoke include:

carbon monoxide
nicotine
hydrogen cyanide
ammonia
volatile aldehydes
Carcinogens in cigar smoke include the following:

benzene
aromatic amines (especially carcinogens such as 2-naphthylamine and 4-minobiphenyl)
vinyl chloride
ethylene oxide
arsenic
chromium
cadmium
nitrosamines
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons



http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ped/content/ped_10_2x_cigar_smoking_and_cancer.asp?sitearea=ped

Do Cigars Cause Cancer?

Cigar smoking increases the risk of death from several cancers, including cancer of the lung, oral cavity (lip, tongue, mouth, throat), esophagus (the tube connecting the mouth to the stomach), and larynx (voice box). Smoking more cigars each day or inhaling cigar smoke leads to more exposure and higher risks. For those who inhale, cigar smoking appears to be linked to cancer of the pancreas and bladder as well.

Most large scale studies have looked at the number of deaths from cancer in cigar smokers, not the number of cancer cases. While this might lead to an underestimation of the number of cancer cases caused by cigar smoking, the figures are still alarming.

If you smoke cigars, your risk of death from larngeal, oral,or esophageal cancers is 4 to 10 times the risk compared to non-smokers.
Studies have shown your risk of death is even higher if you smoke 3 or more cigars a day. However, your risk of death from these types of cancer is lower if you smoke 2 or fewer cigars a day.
The health risk associated with occasional cigar smoking (less than daily) is not known.

Just remember, there are other factors at play with it comes to cancer. So until there is a formal link, your research is BS. Every anti smoking study you provide I can provide another anti cancer study of my own. Reserach is producing inconsistant data as the the effects of smoking. Your using emotional backing of deaths in the family to judge this. Also 400,000 deaths? By that reckoning, tobacco should be banned, considering smoking was the main or secondary cause of death.

Acetaldehyde alters red blood cell structure. It has been known since 1941 that AH easily combines with red blood cell membrane proteins to convert the red blood cells into a "time-release capsule" for AH, releasing the AH in the body far from the site where it attached to the red blood cell.3 As this happens, however, the membrane covering the red blood cell becomes stiffer.21 Yet in order to travel through the capillaries, which are the smallest blood vessels and which feed the trillions of individual cells, the red blood cell must be able to fold or deform. The average red blood cell diameter is 7 microns; yet a typical capillary is only 2 microns in diameter. Red blood cells stiffened through chronic AH exposure will have difficulty deforming sufficiently to pass through capillaries. Consequently, red blood cell-carried oxygen to many cells is reduced.3 (Our brains require 20% of all the oxygen we breathe!) In addition, the work of K.K. Tsuboi and colleagues has shown that AH forms stable combinations with hemoglobin in red blood cells. This reduces the ability of red blood cells to accept, hold, and transport oxygen through the bloodstream, which is their primary function.5

For a study to be scientifically reliable and credible, three fundamental guarantees must apply:

The only research I need is the improvement in my health since I quit smoking 8.5 years ago, being able to walk, dance, rollerblade without laboring for breath. Not seeing my face red from the lack of oxygen when I wake up in the morning.

As an addict for 40 years I know how the addicts mind works you will believe what you want until your forced to face the hard realities of your addiction, good luck

For a study to be
scientifically reliable and credible,
three fundamental guarantees must
apply:
1. To have measured only what it
intended to measure
2. The variables examined are the
only differences between the
measured phenomenon (case) and
what is taken as zero risk sample
(control)
3. The results can be reproduced
by other laboratories
None of the studies on smoking –
especially passive smoke – can
claim to have met even one of those
conditions, thus they do not qualify
as reliable science – let alone as the
basis for propaganda campaigns and
public policy making.

So...what you're saying is you respond to a request for an honest debate with pure anecdotal evidence, appeal to emotion, ad hominems, slippery slopes a host of other logical fallacies...? Well good luck with that.

Certainly labeling all tobacco users as "hopeless and deluded addicts" is hyperbole beyond the ridiculous...it's tantamount to reefer madness. It's perfectly possible to be a casual user of tobacco and not be addicted. Clearly not everyone has an addictive personality. I for one have gone days, sometimes weeks without indulging in a pipe or cigar...in fact if anything I feel as if I should be smoking more and not depriving myself I hardly see pink elephants or get "tobacco spiders" under my skin from going without. It's frankly nothing but a pitiful ad hominem to refer to all tobacco users as addicts and an attempt to divert attention from the argument.

Demonizing a plant that has been a part of Western Culture for 500 years and aboriginal culture for uncounted centuries longer is not the solution...some common sense and common courtesy is. Apparently some individuals think they know better than you what that is...and want to enforce it upon you

How will the government deal with the rise in criminal activity that is sure to accompany the draconian new laws that they will implement along with this?

I have known casual users that are not addicted they are the exception to the rule, I have known people who can not get addicted to tobacco they to are the exception to the rule, I may under stand addiction just a little bit better then you, why because of the time I have spent looking for the answers, it's easy to spot an addict they deny the truth until they have no choice they have all of the answers including "you have to die of some thing" Personally I don't care if you smoke until you no longer breathe as an adult it's your choice my concern is for the children who will replace you and other's as the next victims of the tobacco drug lords and their cohorts in politics.

it's easy to spot an addict they deny the truth until they have no choice they have all of the answers including

Page 23 displays the effects of cigar smoking. The Surgen General on Cigars says that cigar smoking can cause lung cancer and heart disease and yet monograph9 which was done by a goverment insistute shows that non smokers have a higher risk than cigar smokers who smoke 1-2 cigars a day.

The smoke from both cigars and cigarettes is formed largely from the
incomplete combustion of tobacco, and therefore it comes as no surprise
that cigar smoke is composed of the same toxic and carcinogenic constituents
found in cigarette smoke (Chapter 3). Cigars have more tobacco per unit;
and correspondingly, take longer to smoke and generate more smoke per unit.
Additionally, the lower porosity of cigar wrappers results in more of carbon
monoxide per gram of tobacco burned; and the higher nitrate content of cigar
tobacco results in higher concentrations of nitrogen oxides, carcinogenic
N-nitrosamines and ammonia. When bioassayed in animals, the tar of cigar
smoke is more carcinogenic than cigarette smoke tar (Davies and Day, 1969).
There is little evidence from what is known about the tobacco content and
manufacture of premium cigars to suggest that they are less hazardous than
other cigars. Clearly, cigar smoke is as, or more, toxic and carcinogenic than
cigarette smoke; and differences in disease risks produced by using cigarettes
and cigars relate more to differences in patterns of use, and differences in
inhalation, deposition and retention of cigarette and cigar smoke than to
the differences in smoke composition.

Because of the time I have spent "looking for answers" in pursuit of truth in reason, I have learned to spot a pile of unfiltered undiluted b.s. and anecdotal nonsense from miles off such as we are getting now in this discussion... you have no special "addict detection sense" that, like The Shadow" or God, enables you to peer into the hearts - or blood/brain barriers of men. Utter stuff and nonsense.

No further productive discussion can be had with you because you're clearly just looking to be an inflammatory troll who just wants to stump for your opinion alone...

What in cigarette smoke is harmful?

Cigarette smoke is a complex mixture of chemicals produced by the burning of tobacco and its additives. The smoke contains tar, which is made up of more than 4,000 chemicals, including over 60 known to cause cancer. Some of these substances cause heart and lung diseases, and all of them can be deadly. You might be surprised to know some of the chemicals found in cigarette smoke include:

cyanide
benzene
formaldehyde
methanol (wood alcohol)
acetylene (the fuel used in welding torches)
ammonia

If you get them from OTHER countries where they use nothing but the pure, untainted tobacco leaf, you're dealing with a much better, much purer cigar.[/quote

Tobacco has nicotine. Tobacco has tars that are carcinogens. Burning tobacco produces carbon monoxide, cigars more than cigarettes.
Nocotine prevents lungs from removing tars and if you wish to find out what carbon monoxide can do see how long you can breathe on the fumes from a bus and report back with how long you could take it.




As I pointed out previously, you lied about what is in that report or maybe you need some lithium.

I offered from data showing how heart disease and lung cancer are acatally slimer in the chances of getting it from someone who smokes 1-2 cigars a day than the non smoker. This is a report by the goverment, not some fringe website. You didnt look at it because it would go aginst what you are saying and an anti smoker.

It's really stupid to use a report stating cigars cause diseases in attempts to prove they don't cause diseases,
and page 23 clearly states the title of the graph is "U.S. estimated consumption of cigars 1950 to 1997"

Some in the cigar trade have made the claim that cigar smokers experience
little or no increased disease risk. This claim is not supported by the available
scientific evidence and misleads cigar smokers to believe that cigar smoke is less
harmful than cigarette smoke. We believe an accurate statement is that the
risks of tobacco smoke exposure are similar for all sources of tobacco
smoke, and the magnitude of the risks experienced by cigar smokers
is proportionate to the nature and intensity of their exposure.

I really dont take fooledU seriously because he never missed a chance to attack me personally but saying I need to be on meds. But because you simply wont take what I say and read it yourself, let me give you a doctors opinon on monograph 9.