Tablet to reduce carcinogens from smoking

[His Divine Shadow]

I found this interesting, a finnish company apparently released a tablet you can suck on while smoking. Apparently it's all todo with something called acetaldehyde, which is the single most carcinogenic compound in tobacco smoke (or so they say), this tablet contains something (l-cysteine) that neutralizes it, I found this info in english:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16434601

Tobacco smoking is one of the strongest risk factors not only for lung cancer but also for cancers of the upper gastrointestinal tract. Acetaldehyde has been shown to dissolve into the saliva during smoking and to be a local carcinogen in the human upper digestive tract. Cysteine can bind to acetaldehyde and eliminate its toxicity. We developed a tablet that releases cysteine into the oral cavity during smoking and could therefore be a potential chemopreventive agent against toxicity of tobacco smoke. In this study, the efficacy of l-cysteine-containing tablets to reduce the carcinogenic acetaldehyde in the saliva during tobacco smoking was examined. Seven volunteers smoked five cigarettes. During every smoking period, each volunteer sucked a blinded tablet containing 0, 1.25, 2.5, 5, or 10 mg of l-cysteine. Acetaldehyde was analyzed from salivary samples gas chromatographically at 0, 5, and 10 minutes from the beginning of the smoking. All tablets containing l-cysteine reduced highly significantly the salivary acetaldehyde; 5 mg of l-cysteine was the minimum concentration to totally eliminate the acetaldehyde from saliva. The mean salivary acetaldehyde concentrations in samples collected immediately after smoking with 0, 1.25, 2.5, 5, or 10 mg of l-cysteine were 228+/-115 micromol/L, 85+/-42 micromol/L (P=0.007), 9+/-7 micromol/L, 0.09+/- 0.2 micromol/L, 0+/- 0 micromol/L (P<0.001), respectively. In conclusion, carcinogenic acetaldehyde could be totally inactivated in the saliva during smoking by sucking tablet containing 5 mg of l-cysteine. Even a small reduction of the carcinogenicity of cigarette smoke could gain benefit at the population level. Hence, this finding warrants for further clinical trials for l-cysteine tablet in the prevention of upper digestive tract cancers in smokers.

Now local health organizations have been very critical of this because they say it doesn't reduce the risks, and it'll make people less likely to stop smoking. The company responded it does work and it should help people stop smoking since acetaldehyde increases the addictiveness of nicotine and in eliminating it they reduce the addictiveness of tobacco products. The discussion goes on.

Whether it works or not I dunno nor is it the point of this. My question is, do you think this something that should be released if it does work? Should smoking be made safer if it can be, if that means more people will continue to smoke, or maybe even more will take it up? Or should tobacco be as detrimental as it is so people can be legitimately warned from it and eventually maybe it could be outlawed on a larger scale?

And just as an aside... while it doesn't affect me, as a non-smoker, I was left with some disturbing vibes from the health organizations statements. Their rhetoric for dismissing it was really bare, non-existent in fact, they just said it was so and left it at that. I got the definite impression they would say what they felt they need to in order to make people quit. Even if that meant being less than truthful. Felt a bit like how many governments have been conducting their anti-drug campaigns in years past (and present).

[Simon_Jester]

I don't like it when pro-abstinence groups oppose condoms because it makes promiscuity more appealing.

I don't see how I can be consistent with myself and then oppose safer tobacco because it makes smoking more appealing.

[Stark]

Probably because smoking kills you and others, and sex doesn't.

I mean, just throwing that out there to help you.

Can't see how anyone could justify banning it or whatever (that sounds p crazy) but it doesn't make smoking less stupid, selfish, etc. On the flip side, if this product made less people quit or increased the number of kids taking it up due to perceptions of 'safety', should the makers be responsible?

[PainRack]

For me, I will need to ask two questions.

1. How much safer would such a product make smoking.
2. Would the trade off and costs be worth the costs of smoking.

I certainly won't deny the release of this product or that smokers should use the product if they wish to smoke. However, whether I would recommend it instead of insisting that people choose smoking cessation would depend on the answers to the above question

[cosmicalstorm]

I smoke joints recreationally. In order to reduce the damage to my lungs and body from this habit I drink lots of green tea since it seems to have an effect on the level of damage done to the body, especially the risk of developing cancer and pulmonary disease. I also consume a lot of curry, tumeric and other spices.

When searching for information about what could possibly be done to reduce the damaging effects of smoking I have noticed a sentiment that is very hostile to such attempts from various health organizations.

From the hours of reading, mainly on Pubmed that I've done on the subject, I have not been able to come to any firm conclusions.

On the one hand, there are many experiments, especially in vitro where dietary compounds like epigallocatechin gallate, curcumin, cocoa and coffee, to mention a few, appear to be able to reduce the damaging effects of cigarette smoke on the organism.
People who eat plenty of apples, or who consume curry every once in a while, seem less inclined to develop COPD.
I also recall, but have not been able to find it again, a study published several years ago that stated that tribe members who spent a large part of their life near campfires, did not seem to have taken much damage from all the smoke inhaled. Possibly because of their lifestyle giving them protection from atherosclerosis and other negative effects of smoking. (But this last part is all memory, it may be all wrong, has anyone heard of it?).

On the other hand, some studies found that curcumin deactivates the P53 cells which defend the lung from cancer. Some anti-cancer studies aimed at B-vitamin supplementation were even cancelled because the vitamin caused a surge in lung-cancer. There is pretty solid evidence that supplementation has a very strong psychological effect (not just limited to smoking of course).
For instance it seems that multivitamins can make one group of smokers increase their cigarette consumption abruptly compared to another group, presumably because of the believed protective effect.

So it may be prudent to oppose any attempt to alleviate the damage of smoking since it may have the opposite effect. But it would be nice if this pill did work. I'm sure it could help people who don't smoke very often.

[Magis]

Probably because smoking kills you and others, and sex doesn't.

I mean, just throwing that out there to help you.

Maybe you should try telling that to a few million people in Africa and elsewhere.