The public release of internal tobacco industry documents has led to increasing sophistication by independent scientists in the characterisation of the design and function of tobacco products. One critical area of research is the role of smoke chemistry in determining the delivery, absorption, and effects of smoke constituents, especially harm producing or pharmacologically active compounds. The adverse health effects of smoking are a function of the toxicity of smoke constituents, as well as the amount and duration of exposure to those toxins, in combination with individual differences in metabolism of toxic compounds and susceptibility. Conventional measurements of smoke delivery, such as ISO measures, have generally focused on &#x0201c tar&#x0201d or nicotine in smoke PM as collected from the Cambridge filter using standard machine smoking protocols. Recent findings suggest that these measures fail to account for or describe important design&#x02010 based differences in smoke chemistry, which may alter exposure or toxicological impact.

Tobacco industry documents indicate that the major US tobacco manufacturers have routinely sought to measure the amounts of free&#x02010 base nicotine delivered by their own as well as competing brands using a range of internal methods. Many of the documents make reference to specific, brand&#x02010 dependent free&#x02010 base nicotine deliveries in units such as mg per cigarette. While those historic determinations are now understood to have been unreliable in absolute terms, they may nevertheless retain utility as relative measures of smoke alkalinity and free&#x02010 base nicotine delivery. For example, the differences observed among brands by these methods were found to correlate with differences in sensory perception and &#x0201c impact&#x0201d in a manner that appears to be best explained in terms of different relative free&#x02010 base nicotine deliveries.

Because of the enormous historic interest in &#x0201c smoke pH&#x0201d values that is made evident in the tobacco industry documents, public health researchers and governmental entities (for example, Texas, Massachusetts) have recently focused attention on &#x0201c smoke pH&#x0201d as a proxy to determine free&#x02010 base nicotine delivery. For example, since 1997, Massachusetts has required &#x0201c smoke pH&#x0201d testing as a component of its nicotine disclosure regulations.105 This requirement has been the subject of industry criticisms, including the claim that the resulting measurements of &#x0201c smoke pH&#x0201d show only minor differences across brands, and that any differences in these &#x0201c smoke pH&#x0201d values are likely due to differences in methodologies across companies.97,98

The public statements made by tobacco manufacturers are not consistent with decades of industry use of &#x0201c smoke pH&#x0201d and other methods to differentiate commercial brands according to smoke alkalinity. They are also not consistent with the recent determinations by Pankow et al and Watson et al.25,29 Criticisms by Pankow and others, that &#x0201c smoke pH&#x0201d methods are not capable of providing absolute measures of free&#x02010 base nicotine delivery,3,29,31 suggest that traditional &#x0201c smoke pH&#x0201d methods should be supplanted by more accurate approaches for measuring free&#x02010 base nicotine delivery. This point is confirmed by observations made internally by tobacco manufacturers. The method of Pankow et al for measuring effective pH values of collected smoke PM samples holds promise in this regard.29 The Watson et al research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention laboratory is particularly important because it used sophisticated techniques to measure directly the free base fraction of nicotine in cigarette smoke.25 These findings largely substantiated those of Pankow. Watson et al also found that the free base fraction increased in direct relation to increasing ventilation, consistent with the hypothesis that decreasing concentrations of smoke aerosol may result in an increasing fraction of nicotine &#x0201c off gassing&#x0201d in the unionized free&#x02010 base form.

The FTC has requested comments on its tobacco smoke testing methods and has asked the Secretary of Health and Human Services for guidance on how to improve the current testing programme. The World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control has also proposed additional in&#x02010 depth testing of tobacco products to provide more meaningful assessments as to the actual deliveries and exposure of nicotine and other substances.106,107,108,109,110 We conclude that government and public health agencies must seek to better understand the role of smoke chemistry in determining exposure, including how free&#x02010 base nicotine deliveries interact with other substances to influence cigarette addiction potential. One possible regulatory strategy would include the required disclosure by manufacturers of free&#x02010 base nicotine deliveries for marketed brands. In addition, regulatory strategies targeting tobacco product dependence could consider imposing limits on free base nicotine delivery.

For the scientific community, areas requiring study include (1) patterns of free&#x02010 base nicotine deliveries among regular and low yield cigarettes (2) correlation of free&#x02010 base nicotine deliveries with market share (3) differences in measurable effects of percent free&#x02010 base nicotine versus total free&#x02010 base nicotine delivery and (4) effects of free&#x02010 base nicotine delivery on addiction potential. The latter should include studies that measure (a) &#x0201c impact&#x0201d response and sensory effects (b) EEG and other studies that directly measure physiological effects (c) the mechanisms and locations of free&#x02010 base nicotine deposition in the respiratory tract (d) uptake rates within the lung and (e) delivery rates to the brain.

Most sold brand of cigarettes – taxes as a % of price – specific excise by country – data from quandl

E cigarette buy electronic cigarette online usa at puresmokenj.com
Country Level Units As Of Country Page Afghanistan 0.00 % of price 2010 Albania 33.00 % of price 2010 Algeria 40.00 % of price 2010 Angola 0.00 % of price 2008 Antigua and Barbuda 0.00 % of price 2010 Argentina 0.00 % of price 2010 Armenia 18.00 % of price 2010 Australia 55.00 % of price 2010 Austria 13.00 % of price 2010 Azerbaijan 0.00 % of price 2010 Bahrain 0.00 % of price 2010 Bangladesh 0.00 % of price 2010 Barbados 34.00 % of price 2010 Belarus 10.00 % of price 2010 Belgium 7.00 % of price 2010 Belize 10.00 % of price 2010 Benin 0.00 % of price 2010 Bolivia 0.00 % of price 2010 Bosnia and Herzegovina 13.00 % of price 2010 Botswana 39.00 % of price 2010 Brazil 26.00 % of price 2010 Brunei 63.00 % of price 2010 Bulgaria 49.00 % of price 2010 Burkina Faso 0.00 % of price 2010 Burundi 0.00 % of price 2010 Cambodia 0.00 % of price 2010 Cameroon 0.00 % of price 2010 Canada 58.00 % of price 2010 Cape Verde 0.00 % of price 2010 Central African Republic 0.00 % of price 2010 Chad 0.00 % of price 2010 Chile 0.00 % of price 2010 China 1.00 % of price 2010 Colombia 30.00 % of price 2010 Comoros 0.00 % of price 2010 Congo 10.00 % of price 2010 Congo Brazzaville 0.00 % of price 2010 Costa Rica 0.00 % of price 2010 Croatia 20.00 % of price 2010 Cuba 87.00 % of price 2008 Cyprus 15.00 % of price 2010 Czech Republic 34.00 % of price 2010 Denmark 34.00 % of price 2010 Djibouti 0.00 % of price 2010 Dominica 13.00 % of price 2010 Dominican Republic 26.00 % of price 2010 Ecuador 0.00 % of price 2010 Egypt 34.00 % of price 2010 El Salvador 26.00 % of price 2010 Equatorial Guinea 0.00 % of price 2008 Eritrea 0.00 % of price 2010 Estonia 33.00 % of price 2010 Ethiopia 0.00 % of price 2010 Fiji 77.00 % of price 2008 Finland 8.00 % of price 2010 France 6.00 % of price 2010 Gabon 0.00 % of price 2010 Gambia 30.00 % of price 2010 Georgia 46.00 % of price 2010 Germany 33.00 % of price 2010 Ghana 0.00 % of price 2010 Greece 9.00 % of price 2010 Grenada 0.00 % of price 2010 Guatemala 0.00 % of price 2010 Guinea 0.00 % of price 2010 Guinea Bissau 0.00 % of price 2010 Guyana 0.00 % of price 2010 Honduras 26.00 % of price 2010 Hungary 31.00 % of price 2010 Iceland 36.00 % of price 2010 India 28.00 % of price 2010 Indonesia 46.00 % of price 2010 Iran 0.00 % of price 2010 Iraq 0.00 % of price 2010 Ireland 43.00 % of price 2010 Israel 20.00 % of price 2010 Italy 4.00 % of price 2010 Ivory Coast 0.00 % of price 2010 Jamaica 36.00 % of price 2010 Japan 58.00 % of price 2010 Jordan 18.00 % of price 2010 Kazakhstan 16.00 % of price 2010 Kenya 50.00 % of price 2010 Kiribati 0.00 % of price 2010 Kuwait 0.00 % of price 2010 Kyrgyzstan 8.00 % of price 2010 Laos 2.00 % of price 2010 Latvia 30.00 % of price 2010 Lebanon 0.00 % of price 2010 Lesotho 28.00 % of price 2010 Liberia 0.00 % of price 2010 Libya 0.00 % of price 2010 Lithuania 35.00 % of price 2010 Luxembourg 9.00 % of price 2010 Macedonia 4.00 % of price 2010 Madagascar 0.00 % of price 2010 Malawi 37.00 % of price 2008 Malaysia 38.00 % of price 2010 Maldives 0.00 % of price 2010 Mali 0.00 % of price 2010 Malta 11.00 % of price 2010 Mauritania 0.00 % of price 2010 Mauritius 59.00 % of price 2010 Mexico 3.00 % of price 2010 Moldova 1.00 % of price 2010 Mongolia 22.00 % of price 2010 Montenegro 15.00 % of price 2010 Morocco 1.00 % of price 2008 Mozambique 16.00 % of price 2010 Myanmar 0.00 % of price 2010 Namibia 33.00 % of price 2010 Nepal 17.00 % of price 2010 Netherlands 36.00 % of price 2010 New Zealand 61.00 % of price 2010 Nicaragua 16.00 % of price 2010 Niger 0.00 % of price 2010 Nigeria 0.00 % of price 2010 Norway 52.00 % of price 2010 Oman 0.00 % of price 2010 Pakistan 37.00 % of price 2010 Panama 0.00 % of price 2010 Papua New Guinea 26.00 % of price 2008 Paraguay 0.00 % of price 2010 Peru 31.00 % of price 2010 Philippines 52.00 % of price 2010 Poland 37.00 % of price 2010 Portugal 39.00 % of price 2010 Qatar 0.00 % of price 2010 Romania 42.00 % of price 2010 Russia 13.00 % of price 2010 Rwanda 0.00 % of price 2010 Saint Kitts and Nevis 0.00 % of price 2010 Saint Lucia 0.00 % of price 2010 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 2.00 % of price 2010 Samoa 48.00 % of price 2010 San Marino 0.00 % of price 2010 Sao Tome and Principe 0.00 % of price 2010 Saudi Arabia 0.00 % of price 2010 Senegal 0.00 % of price 2010 Serbia 22.00 % of price 2010 Seychelles 68.00 % of price 2010 Sierra Leone 0.00 % of price 2010 Singapore 61.00 % of price 2010 Slovak Republic 43.00 % of price 2010 Slovenia 15.00 % of price 2010 Somalia 0.00 % of price 2010 South Africa 41.00 % of price 2010 South Korea 53.00 % of price 2010 Spain 6.00 % of price 2010 Sri Lanka 59.00 % of price 2010 Sudan 0.00 % of price 2010 Suriname 41.00 % of price 2010 Swaziland 33.00 % of price 2010 Sweden 12.00 % of price 2010 Switzerland 30.00 % of price 2010 Syria 18.00 % of price 2010 Tajikistan 3.00 % of price 2010 Tanzania 11.00 % of price 2010 Thailand 2.00 % of price 2010 The Bahamas 0.00 % of price 2010 Togo 0.00 % of price 2010 Tonga 55.00 % of price 2010 Trinidad and Tobago 21.00 % of price 2010 Tunisia 2.00 % of price 2010 Turkey 0.00 % of price 2010 Turkmenistan 15.00 % of price 2010 Tuvalu 0.00 % of price 2010 UAE 0.00 % of price 2010 Uganda 29.00 % of price 2010 UK 38.00 % of price 2010 Ukraine 33.00 % of price 2010 Uruguay 54.00 % of price 2010 USA 40.00 % of price 2010 Uzbekistan 13.00 % of price 2010 Vanuatu 12.00 % of price 2010 Venezuela 0.00 % of price 2010 Vietnam 0.00 % of price 2010 Yemen 6.00 % of price 2010 Zambia 0.00 % of price 2010 Zimbabwe 0.00 % of price 2010