In the picture there is a cigarette of the optimal size, in a cigarette holder. Note that the cigarette goes a centimeter or so inside the holder. The paper used was a roll of Smoking Black. The paper is so thin that the tobacco can be seen through the paper. Standard Rizla paper pack is added for scale.
Unfortunately no-one manufactures ready-cut papers of the optimal size. All papers are either too short or too long. Hence, a roll, where you can cut the length of paper you want, is the best alternative.
I have tried a new rolling tobacco, Bonus Gold. It is supposed to be a milder version of Bonus Red, a rolling tobacco I use a lot, but it really does not taste milder at all. It has a very strong rolling tobacco taste that masks the aroma of pipe tobacco very effectively. In my cigarettes, the rolling tobacco is not meant to be tasted. I won’t be buying this one again.
OK, this was an excellent cigarette. Smoking it was like smoking a cigar in the cigarette format. Harmony pipe tobacco has a dark and mysterious flavour. It brings to mind blue cheese; the package says that it has been matured long, maybe that explains the association. It is easy for me to imagine gentlemen in the 1950s in a fine club, playing skruuvi (an old Finnish bridge-like card game) and enjoying this taste.
Since the aroma of the pipe tobacco dominates, inexpensive rolling tobacco Bonus is good enough with it.
Last Friday when I blogged about University Flake pipe tobacco for the first time, my sense of taste was playing me tricks. That night all the tobacco tasted bad (except for that one Irish Whiskey -cigarette, which tasted just as I remembered.) So my first review was overly negative. During the past couple of days, I have tried University Flake several times, and it is still not the tobacco-related orgasm Samuel Gawith Balkan Flake is, but Uni Flake is a rather inoffensive tobacco with a nice taste of forest fruit.
Since University Flake is a bit expensive, I chose a little bit better rolling tobacco, that is, Smart, to accompany it.
I still do not know what happened to my sense of taste last Friday. I had been eating nothing special, except for strong chili-flavoured foods.
Here some guy has found Christian virtues in smoking. I have no idea whether this is intended as a joke or a serious text. Being an atheist, both alternatives are fine with me.
Sometimes the claims of the anti-tobacco camp become ridiculous propaganda. Yes, smoking is dangerous, but sometimes the propaganda has nothing to do with the real dangers of tobacco. The anti-tobacco camp seems to accept any claim as long as it makes tobacco seem dangerous. Here are some of the more ridiculous claims.
“Tobacco smoke contains so-and-so many different dangerous chemical compounds.” The number is usually many hundreds. But it is not the number of different dangerous chemicals that kills. It is the quantity. Even one dangerous chemical kills, if taken in sufficient quantities, and any number is harmless, if the quantities are small enough. Hence, the number of different dangerous chemicals is completely irrelevant to the dangerousness of tobacco.
“Tobacco smoke contains so-and-so many different chemical compounds.” This is even more ridiculous than the previous one. Why should I care about the number of chemical compounds if you are not even telling me whether they are dangerous? All organic matter contains a huge number of different chemical compounds, but no-one thinks that for example food is dangerous because of that.
“Tobacco smoke contains <a list of scientific names of chemical compounds.>” I have actually seen this as a warning label in a box of cigarettes. An average reader, such as myself, has no way of knowing if the listed compounds are dangerous. The warning label seems to rely solely on the association between dangerousness and having a scientific name. But, guess what, all chemical compounds have scientific names, whether or not they are dangerous, so the informative value of this warning to an average reader is zero. It seems to rely solely on the shock value of scientific names.
All governments in the Western world seem to toughen the restrictions in smoking, and the Finnish one even intends to eradicate smoking altogether in a couple of decades. In general, majorities are usually quite intolerant towards the vices of minorities, so it is no wonder that the majority of people plays along.
What I have been wondering is that why there is no vocal minority in the media opposing the plans of the governments. I have seen individual opposing voices on shabby message boards, but nothing that could be taken seriously. There should be people having an interest opposing the governments in this case, at least smokers themselves and individual freedom enthusiasts. But even decriminalizing cannabis seems to get more attention from the latter group than opposing the trend of restricting tobacco smoking.
When the governments started toughening the laws regarding illegal home copying of music and movies, all around the Europe political “pirate parties” arose to oppose the trend. Why are we not seeing a similar movement wrt. smoking?