WI: No cigarette filters

filters were mostly seen as first as a Womans thing, not getting tobacco bits on your teeth, so had the holders.
Now some men also went for that, and filters did cool things a bit, making it 'smoother'

Tobacco companies like them, as smokers they were thought to make smoking safer, and filter section cost less than tobacco filling, so smokers would buy more packs, or longer(and at first, more expensive) 100s to get the same amount of tobacco as unfiltered.
 
It's not surprising they started putting filters in cigarettes when the first studies about smoking and cancer were getting media attention. So it's pretty much inevitable, since they can imply that they're selling safe cigarettes (hence more sales).
 
If the industry never decides to put filters in, does the anti-amoking lobby pressure them to do so(because that would make cigarettes less harmful), or not(because filters would give smokers a false sense of safety)?
 
If the industry never decides to put filters in, does the anti-amoking lobby pressure them to do so(because that would make cigarettes less harmful), or not(because filters would give smokers a false sense of safety)?
They'd do it as a compromise, which is a lot like OTL.
 
The cigarettes have a wider variety of smoother cooler blends, and holders remain a thing, at least for another decade. Tobacco butts rot faster on the ground, so fewer butts littering the sidewalks and flower beds. Picking up used butts to salvage the residual tobacco remains a thing among the desperate.
 
Top