Did the Appearance of Filter Tips Cause Lung Cancer?

Actually, I feel a bit lazy tonight. I’ve been busy, busy all day, so I’m just going to publish something that I came across with a few comments maybe. Here is the source:


I’ve pasted the article exactly as it is since I don’t want to bugger it up by italicising and stuff:

The First Cigarette Filters Give People Super Lung Cancer


Smoking used to be something people did, like sleeping or breathing or fightin’ Germans. But then, in 1952, Reader’s Digest published an article titled “Cancer By The Carton.” The cigarette companies, unsurprisingly, freaked right the hell out. Different companies came up with different approaches to assure the public that their cigarette was the safest way to protractedly kill yourself. Some went the straight-up bullshit route — like the infamous “More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette” marketing campaign — but at least one company set out to actually make their cigarettes safer.

via University of Albany
… and ran infamous ad campaigns about it.

Lorillard Tobacco introduced their Kent brand, a filtered cigarette in a time where filtering cigarettes was basically unconstitutional. Kent’s patented Micronite filter was touted as the healthiest way to smoke, and smokers snapped that shit right up, burning their way through 13 billion Kents between 1952 and 1956. Unfortunately, all those billions of filters that America had so enthusiastically sucked on were made out of “Bolivian blue” asbestos — a type of asbestos that hates your lungs with a passion even fiercer than the most unfiltered, untamed tobacco.

Christopher Pattberg/iStock/Getty Images
“But you can protect yourself from that with Kent’s plutonium nasal spray!”

For their four years spent selling their customers exponential cancer, Lorillard is still paying out millions in lawsuits. And today, Kent cigarettes are marketed as a “premium” brand, even though they now only come with regular, non-premium cancer.


Clearly, the author is anti-smoking! But we should not hold that against the poor sap. If he cannot see the difference between the cancers supposed to be caused by tobacco smoke and those caused by needles of blue asbestos, he is a sap.

But is what he says true? Did Lorillard (or its equivalent in the 1950s) really use blue asbestos in their cig filters? Also, was the asbestos in the same form as the blue asbestos which is so dangerous to inhale?

The author says: “Kent’s patented Micronite filter was touted as the healthiest way to smoke, and smokers snapped that shit right up, burning their way through 13 billion Kents between 1952 and 1956.”

He also says: “For their four years spent selling their customers exponential cancer, Lorillard is still paying out millions in lawsuits.”


The first filter-tipped  cigs that I came across (about 1957) were Craven A. The vast majority of cigs were not tipped. I wonder if Craven A had anything to do with Lorillard? It is hard to know. But we should also note the dates – 1952 to 1956. How many smokers since 1952 were poisoned by blue asbestos rather than tobacco between 1952 and 1956? How many of the smoking doctors in the Doll Doctors Study were smoking the ‘safer’ cig called “Kent”? We shall never know since Doll did not ask the questions.

But we have a similar question to ask today about ‘fire-safe’ cigs. The EU has forced TobComs to smear some sort of glue on the inside of the paper of cig tubes. What tests have been done on that glue and its possible long-term carcinogenic properties? The Zealots are fulminating over the vague possibilities that ecigs might just possible be dangerous, but say nothing about the dangers of their own interventions. The classic case is that of the Canadian Government persuading tobacco companies to grow and use varieties of tobacco plant which produced less tar, and then blaming the TobComs for claiming that the cigs had less tar and were therefore less dangerous.


Someone said that tobacco control always seem to be a step ahead. I suppose that the commenter meant that TC gained intelligence from sites like this one. I doubt that these sites matter, but TC does seem to be one step ahead all the time. But not really with bloggers, but rather with tobacco companies and politicians. But we must always be aware that TC is a ghost. It has no actual physical existence. Tobacco companies produce cigs, smokers buy the cigs. There is a physical thing – the cig. TC produces nothing at all. In desperation, it claims magical improvements in health from the moment that a smoking ban is introduced or a tax rise imposed. It always does.

I think that it is reasonable to say that tobacco control has damaged the night economy (pub closures etc), wasted hundreds of millions of pounds on adverts, caused untold damage to the ‘body politic’, wasted millions on spurious ‘studies’, created burgeoning criminal activity, but has not improved ‘the health of the nation’ by one iota.


Odd, is it not, that smokers could terminate the whole thing in a few months in England. It is so, so simple. Take a three day trip to Belgium and but a year’s supply very cheap. Take out a bank loan if necessary. Why are smokers so lazy in their thinking? I cringe every time I see someone buy ten cigs at the local co-op. I mean that. In a funny way, every time I see a person buy ten cigs at the co-op, a little bit of me dies. Thankfully, that little bit revitalises itself pretty quickly. So what has happened is that ordinary, law-abiding people are TOO STUPID to find out how to stop paying stupid taxes. I’m sorry, but I cannot think of any other reason that people are buying ten cigs in the co-op. If they smoke so little that that ten cigs last a couple of days, then that is a reason to go on ONE trip to buy their WHOLE cig needs for a year.

And that is where TobComs have let us all down. Only they could have organised the organisations to unite smokers. In France, after the German invasion, THE RESISTANCE did not organise itself. But it would be a terrible mistake to think that the the enjoyment of tobacco could generate self-sacrifice. No. The ‘Resistance’ in this case must be multifaceted. It is a determination of pricks here and there, the odd ‘Stony Stratford’ and the odd ‘Vapefest’. Above all, it is civil disobedience. It is slow and underground, but very real. Eventually, it will cause tobacco control to wither away. It is the modern equivalent  of the French Revolution. No heads need to roll (although they should), but I think that it is possible that the Net will not forget those people who inflicted the smoking ban upon the People of England.

That is a new idea and ought not to be ignored. WHO were the people who inflicted the smoking ban upon the people of England?

Patricia Hewitt was the actual person who did so. She is the prime witch. She has no excuse at all. She is the Prime Witch. She was the equivalent of Hitler when he approved the extermination of Jews.

Does that matter? Yes it does, because politics is not, fundamentally, about economics, security, health etc. It is about SOCIETY. It is about how we all get along with each other.


This subject is not exhausted, but I am tired. Perhaps others might derive further considerations.



7 Responses to “Did the Appearance of Filter Tips Cause Lung Cancer?”

  1. Ed Says:

    Craven A was a Brand from Carreras, which was a British tobacco company. They first came out with cork tipped around 1930 and introduced filter tipped around 1950. The brand had the famous slogan “Will not affect your throat” and was named after the earl of Craven.

    Lorillard was an American tobacco company and wasn’t connected.

    There’s a little bit of info on both companies on wiki;



    • junican Says:

      Thanks for the links – very interesting reads.
      I wasn’t serious about a link between Lorillard and Craven A really. But perhaps there may have been some sort of cross-fertilisation of the idea of filter tips? Who knows?

  2. jltrader Says:

    ”Smoking used to be something people did, like sleeping or breathing or fightin’ Germans.” Just like drinking a Coke or a fruit juice is today. And the public health zealots want to deny us this pleasure too.

  3. smofunking Says:

    Similar thoughts had crossed my mind but I guess I find it somewhat difficult to berate people who pay UK shop prices for their tobacco when I’m paying around 60% tax/duty on a pint down the pub, albeit reluctantly.

    • junican Says:

      Good point, smo. I too like my alcohol. But there is a difference. I can go to Spain for a few days and buy several thousand cigs, pay half price, and pack them in a suitcase and thus save hundreds of pounds. I could not do that with wine, whiskey or beer.

  4. smofunking Says:

    Yes, I did consider the practicalities. I suppose I was viewing it more as a point of principle.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: