Is "natural" or "additive-free" tobacco better or worse? More and some links inside.
→[More:]
My Mom is trying to cut down and thinks this might be a step.
I would think an additive-free tobacco that's free of caffeine, arsenic, formaldehyde, ETC. ETC. could only be
better. And you'd still get tar and carbon monoxide from an "herbal cigarette," but no addictive nicotine. No?
The California American Lung Assoc
claims "natural" is worse, although they
might just do that to combat the idea of "healthy smoking" and to fight "natural tobacco" being marketed as a "gateway" to the real thing.
From the site:
Natural tobacco often contains higher concentrations of tar and nicotine, and the smoke has greater levels of toxic agents such as carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide, ammonia and carcinogenic hydrocarbons.
WTF?
More nicotine, even if it's not bred for higher nicotine concentration?
This fellow says "natural" is better, which seems to make sense as long as your "natural" tobacco hasn't been bred to have more nicotine. Yes? No?
Okay, so you still get plenty of tar and carbon monoxide from just about anything, even if it's nicotine free. And of course "bidis" are evil. And cloves have always been harsh. Mom's not thinking of any of these, but
here's an interesting article anyway.
What do you think?