[TelmoMenezes]

Not all other areas. Some products are inherently unsafe, and that is precisely what the costumers want. Alcoholic beverages are unsafe, even lethal if you drink too much. They could be made safer by removing the alcohol, but that is not what most people want. The same applies to fast food and sugary drinks: could be made much safer, but people want a certain flavor at a certain price (and most know it's not healthy).

Inhaling the smoke of burning tobacco leaves can cause cancer. I am fairly certain nobody has as strong of an incentive to create cancer-free tobacco as tobacco companies do. That does not mean it is possible, right?

[chrstphrhrt]

  "Some products are inherently unsafe, and that is precisely what the costumers want."

Radioactive material in tobacco might be mutually exclusive from nicotine and MAOI content. My layperson guess is getting rid of the radioactivity would require prohibitively expensive hydroponic growing. It's the drug part that consumers want, and I'm pretty sure if given the knowledge and option they'd go for non-radioactive cigarettes.

Swedish snus is made to minimize tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs), but seems to not address Polonium-210 on account of the radioactive stuff being "comparable to that from the natural background radiation sources or dental x-rays": https://harmreductionjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1...

That excuse doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny. Who really wants to have 10-20 chest x-rays done per day? Are "dental" x-rays really as weak as "background" radiation?

Alcohol seems to be in a similar position - see the popularity of nice wine and beer over e.g. guzzling cheap spirits.

I think people want health AND pleasure, and are willing to do their own hedonic calculus.

[addicted]

Alcoholic beverages are not unsafe if consumed in the recommended amounts (which are fairly reasonable. 2 drinks on average, with a 3 drink max).

What's the safe, reasonable, recommended smoking amount?

[TelmoMenezes]

Zero (cigarettes are highly addictive).

My point is that reality limits how much safer you could make a product. Would it be nice for cigarette or alcoholic beverages to be safer? Yes. Is it possible? Apparently not.

Either tobacco becomes a controlled substance (I am deeply opposed to this given the catastrophic social consequences of prohibition in general), or adults behave like adults, understand the risks, decide for themselves and accept the consequences. Maybe it's because I'm European, but anything else sounds like insanity to me.

By the way, I am not being judgemental in any way. I am an ex-smoker and I drink socially. If people want to smoke (without polluting the environment of others who don't) it's their right, and I completely understand. I used to love it too.

[ghurtado]

> Either tobacco becomes a controlled substance

What on earth are you talking about? Tobacco is already a controlled substance in more ways than nearly anything that you can buy at a store (including guns).

[TelmoMenezes]

I meant prohibited, of course. I think that is fairly obvious from the context of my post. Sorry for the lack of rigor.

Where I live it is almost impossible to buy a gun. On the other hand, I can go downstairs and buy a pack of cigarettes with the same ease that I could buy bubble gum. No questions asked, no ID needed, no records.

[new_hackers]

I would recommend puff, puff, pass. Otherwise you risk the chance of a bogart.

[Falkon1313]

It is possible to make them less carcinogenic. Carcinogens come from fertilizers and pesticides (which could be controlled/replaced), from the curing process (which could be replaced with anaerobic curing), and from additives (which could not be added). So a lot could be removed, but there is still inherent bad stuff in breathing smoke. That's enough to cause blowback from people who are afraid that advertising "safer cigarettes" would encourage more people to smoke. Lengthy expensive IP/patent lawsuits have also delayed development. And of course there's the issue of whether customers like it, whether it's profitable, and how much it cannibalizes the tobacco company's other business.

Possible to improve? Yes, perhaps significantly. Economically and politically feasible? Maybe not so much.