Too much smoke

February 16, 2010 5:52 AM

Why don't all smokers smoke the '100' variety of their brand?

I don't smoke. Many years ago I learned that almost all of the major cigarette brands sell a version of their cigarettes called "100s". This means a 100mm cigarette, which is about 25 - 33% longer than a "normal" cigarette.

My question: why don't ALL smokers smoke the "100" version of their cigarette brand? Everywhere I've ever bothered to check, the "100" version was the same price as the smaller cigarettes. So unless there's something I'm missing here (for example, that the 100s are padded out with some kind of "filler" that somehow changes the taste of the smoke), people are wasting their money by not paying the same price and getting the extra tobacco of the 100.

The only answer I've gotten from people who smoke are, "That's too much cigarette!" Ie, a 100 provides more of a smoke than they want at any given time. But that doesn't seem to gibe with me, since I've seen some of these same people chain-smoke on occasion.

So, what could it be? My other thought is that it has something to do with a longer cigarette being associated with a certain type of "desperate housewife" character. In other words, smoking an extra-long cigarette is a cosmetic faux pas.

posted by meadowlark lime to grab bag (32 answers total)

Smoking is ritualistic. Ever watch a smoker open a pack of cigarettes? They all have a complicated, arbitrary method that they follow instinctively. Smokers know, almost consciously, exactly how many drags a normal cigarette will take to complete. It's part of the process, the ritual, the pleasure. Deviating from this doesn't feel right. It does feel too long because it is not your ritual, unless you are a natural 100s smoker. This is why they say it's too much cigarette, even thought they light one up right after another.

Also, 100s look silly.
posted by milarepa at 5:59 AM on February 16, 2010

in my younger smoking days, i know that we always associated any 100s with capri ultra slim menthol lights or some such "lady" variety. we were cool, we smoked camel wides.

also, some people are just social smokers (smoke when drinking at a bar or party). they might appear to chain smoke, but probaly aren't inahling all that much and just constantly have a cigarette lit. i used to smoke all the time at bars, but didn't really smoke all that much outside of bars. i would never think to get 100s because i wasn't a "smoker" in my mind.

fwiw, i no longer smoke and never had the problem quitting that some people i know did (and do). some of the people who are hard core smokers DO smoke the 100s. but they are close to pack-a-day people.
posted by sio42 at 6:02 AM on February 16, 2010

I used to smoke, and yes, 100s were "too much cigarette" for me (I never did chain smoke). As referenced above, there's a ritual associated with smoking, and 100s mess up that ritual. The pack is also larger, and doesn't fit in my hand, bag, or pocket the same way.

There are also "short" versions of some cigarettes, which usually sell for the same price, and using the laws of economics, no one would ever buy them because they're not a good value. Smoking and economics don't really go together, though, if you think about it.
posted by peanut_mcgillicuty at 6:05 AM on February 16, 2010 [1 favorite]

I didn't smoke them for the same reason I didn't smoke the strongest cigarettes I could find: it's too much for a single cigarette. It's not quite analogous, but this is like asking why people don't always go for the stronger alcoholic beverage if it's the same price as a normal one?

Also, you are not a smoker so whether it 'gibes with you' or not is somewhat irrelevant if you're going to ignore what smokers are telling you. Chain smoking is not the norm for most people, so to increase your normal consumption levels to closer to that point doesn't make sense. In my experience, most smokers aren't looking to increase the amount they smoke.
posted by slimepuppy at 6:08 AM on February 16, 2010 [1 favorite]

Speaking as a former smoker (both 100s and regulars, and sometimes a chain smoker), sometimes it is too much cigarette. And chain-smoking sometimes doesn't translate into chain-smoking all the time, so you do end up wasting precious precious cigarette if you buy longer cigs than what you like to smoke during a break at work or on the way to the bus.

Also, sometimes the 100s aren't available in your preferred style (lights but not ultra-lights, menthol but not regular), or they're only available in the soft pack.

Not to mention - this might have been just me or it might be common - since you have to go up to the counter at Walgreens and tell the cashier exactly what you want, and you have to do this like every other day or however often you go through a pack, it annoyed me to say all those words. I went from "menthol ultra light 100s" to "lights" because it was quicker to say and easier for cashiers to find.
posted by Metroid Baby at 6:11 AM on February 16, 2010

Also, 100s look silly.

Only at first?

Seriously though, when I used to smoke I was with the others above that 100's were "too much" cigarette at once. (And this was many years ago when U.S. cigs cost only around $2 per pack so I never felt cheated by the shorter kings.)
posted by applemeat at 6:14 AM on February 16, 2010

"wasting their money by not paying the same price and getting the extra tobacco of the 100."

This actually was a consideration for me at one time and I made my purchasing decisions with this in mind. So yes, the idea you're putting forth is not utterly foreign to all smokers. Then I got a more than part time, more than minimum wage job and didn't give a crap about the minimal increase in per-cigarette smoking time (it's about 30s to 60s longer) any more.

Smoking, obviously, is not a rational economic decision to begin with. So don't expect rationality on such a minor scale in addition. I quit last year, and my thing here says I've "saved" $3,500 doing so (before the cost of treatment for quitting, which was marginal). Once you're pissing away the far side of three grand a year on your vices you're really no longer concerning yourself with minor optimizations.
posted by majick at 6:19 AM on February 16, 2010

My understanding is that 100s have the same amount of tobacco, just packed differently. 100s are slightly slimmer, and the ones my step dad smoked had an extra half cm of filter. Here in Canada, we have "regular", "king size" (longer) and 100s (longest), and the difference between regular and king size is just the density of the tobacco inside the tube. People prefer one over the other for how they burn, I'm guessing it's the same thing with 100s.
posted by sunshinesky at 6:20 AM on February 16, 2010

Smokers are not particularly rational about their habit and often try to minimize the amount they claim to smoke; a good example is a friend of mine who claims to be a light smoker because she only smokes about half of each cigarette; she also smokes 3 packs a day and is in no way a light smoker. She won't alter her "ritual" (as described well by milarepa) even though she could get a lot more mileage out of a carton. In other words, to grab a phrase from some of the other posters, she feels even a regular cigarette is too much for her, even as she compensates by smoking large numbers of them.
posted by TedW at 6:20 AM on February 16, 2010

I've always understood 100s to have the same amount of tobacco as regular cigarettes, as sunshinesky pointed out.

The "100" referred to the length in millimeters, with regular cigarettes being 10mm shorter. If I remember correctly (and it's been a while) if you take a 100 and line it up next to a 90, you'll notice that the filter in the 100 is actually longer, while the tobacco chamber is actually the same length as the 90.

I'm having trouble verifying this online, however.
posted by nitsuj at 6:54 AM on February 16, 2010

I smoke American Spirits, and as far as I know, there is no such option for me to choose from. Were there one, I probably would not deviate from my normal "flavor" for reasons mentioned above.
posted by King Bee at 7:08 AM on February 16, 2010

Similar to what sio42 said, as a kid my group of friends associated the 100's with femininity.
posted by archivist at 7:09 AM on February 16, 2010

Tobacco companies are notoriously fiscally savvy. No way would they sell more tobacco for the same price. Purposely creating a line of cigarettes with lower margins? Insane. Either it's the same amount of tobacco, or it's lower-quality tobacco, or it's not really the same price.
posted by Plutor at 7:11 AM on February 16, 2010

When I used to smoke I smoked both types, and the 100s burn down even quicker, in my opinion. I think it's the slimmer profile. Many times my husband and I would light up at the same time and I would always be done before him, when he smoked Marlboro regs and I smoked the 100s. He would occasionally pinch a 100 off of me and he did look silly smoking it, now that I think back. So did I.
posted by iconomy at 7:16 AM on February 16, 2010

I once attended a public health presentation on the Australian tobacco escalation of the 80s, where tobacco companies got into an arms race trying to fit more and more cigarettes in a packet in order to capture the budget segment of the market.

The Australian cigarette brand as product, person, and symbol is the study in question. Brands like Horizon and Longbeach ramped up to 50 cigs a packet during the 80s. They had the technology to produce 60s and 65s, but never used it for fear of completely devastating the market. (It was internally referred to as the nuclear option.)

While the study is specific to the Australian market, it makes the point that there are different kinds of smokers - some care about brand, some care about value. Different people have different habits of nicotine consumption.

Expecting smokers to be completely logical in maximizing their tobacco intake is kind of odd, really - if they were dispassionate rational actors, would they be smoking in the first place?
posted by zamboni at 7:19 AM on February 16, 2010

When I smoked in my teenage years, I was under the impression that the filters of 100s were also longer. Because of this we thought that 100s were in theory more economical but were in practice too weak. This coming from someone who smoked Merit Ultra Lights, yeah, I was a dumbass.
posted by superkim at 7:22 AM on February 16, 2010

Yes, the filter is longer, so you have to pull harder on the smoke. The length makes the experience feel different as well-- like I'm wielding a pencil. A lady-like pencil.
posted by travertina at 7:25 AM on February 16, 2010 [1 favorite]

Vouching, from personal experience, what milarepa said. Smoking cigarettes is a habit as much as it is a nicotine addiction. Compulsions abound when dealing with smokers. Everything from how they "pack" their cigarettes to how they open them to whether they buy hard packs or soft packs.

It also might be a time thing. When I was a smoker I knew I could smoke a regular cigarette in 4.5 minutes and a 100 in 7 minutes (I think the fact that I knew this speaks to my first point, as well). Very handy information when trying to squeeze in a cigarette break during work, out with friends, etc.
posted by citywolf at 7:27 AM on February 16, 2010

Before the more strict advertising regulations you would see 100s ads in magazines being smoked by 'glamorous' women. I think they were marketed for consumption by women and as a result our society, at least in America, has been socialized to accept that preconceived notion even though the ads are no longer around.

Just like pink is the color of a baby girl and blue is the color of a boy. The concept is the same and it took less time for society to make the association because of all the marketing dollars that backed the idea.
posted by Gainesvillain at 7:28 AM on February 16, 2010

I was always under the impression that 100's were a "women's" cigarette and guys didn't smoke them because you may look feminine. The added length looks a little delicate, almost like you're using a cigarette holder, while the shorter Kings are more reminiscent of the length of a "manly" unfiltered.
posted by sourwookie at 7:31 AM on February 16, 2010

Also, remember that there are two elements involved in calculating the volume of a cylinder: length and diameter. I've always assumed that while they're longer they also maintained less girth.
posted by Gainesvillain at 7:32 AM on February 16, 2010

100s always seemed like they took longer to smoke. I always enjoyed a quick smoke, so I smoked regulars (Canada - the short ones) and they didn't even make 100s in my brand. Half the time, I didn't even have the full cigarette, but putting it out and relighting it later grossed me out (and made my cigarette pack and handbag stink to the high heavens).
posted by futureisunwritten at 7:32 AM on February 16, 2010

People do everything possible to self-justify their smoking habits. I smoked a pack a day for a damn long time, and I seldom if ever bought cartons. Because i was always going to quit.
posted by RajahKing at 7:50 AM on February 16, 2010

It's not the same cigarette only longer; as mentioned, the filter is longer, it's a different drag... The [Canadian] Benson & Hedges 100s are not the same cigarette as any of the regular Benson & Hedges that I used to smoke.
posted by kmennie at 7:51 AM on February 16, 2010

What sourwookie said. At least back in the 1970s/80s, 100s and 120s were specifically marketed to women as an elegant, sophisticated smoke. Virginia Slims seem to be the semi-surviving example of this.

If you want to see some long cigarettes in action, hang out with a bunch of old ladies at a canasta game.

Cigarette brands and varieties are advertised and marketed to specific target groups. Observe the ads or talk to people who have worked at a convenience store--you can almost always guess what someone smokes based on age, gender, race and what they're wearing.
posted by quarterframer at 9:21 AM on February 16, 2010

Virginia Slims seem to be the semi-surviving example of this

Mores are still around, too; they were the first mass-marketed 120 mm cigarette but are very slim. They weren't so strongly marketed to women at first and gave the impression they were a lighter alternative to short fat smokes, which prompted my father to switch to them from True cigarettes. Misty is another brand that targets women, I am sure there are others around.

Some have mentioned that the blend of tobacco is adjusted in longer cigarettes; there is some tobacco leaf in there, but a lot of processed by-products. Basically stems and dust that have been processed into a paper-like substance that is then shredded and added to tobacco. Some filler is also puffed up with supercritical carbon dioxide. So there is a lot that goes into determining the burning and smoking characteristics of a given brand and rather than add more "real" tobacco, the manufacturer can cut it with cheaper filler if the cigarette really takes more tobacco. The manufacturers also add a selection of literally hundreds of other additives (600-700 by some estimates, although they manufacturers guard this information closely) that affect the way a brand smokes and perhaps most importantly increase the bioavailability of nicotine. So despite differences in size and shape of a cigarette, the bottom line is that the amount of nicotine you get is independent of that and controlled to a large extent by the maker. All of these things are why cigarettes are so much worse than other forms of tobacco in a number of ways.
posted by TedW at 10:13 AM on February 16, 2010

They draw too hard. My brother will smoke my mom's 100's, and he always cuts about 1/8 inch off of the filter - it makes them almost "normal." I think that the tougher drag also makes them burn cooler, so the smoke doesn't taste the same.
posted by The Light Fantastic at 10:58 AM on February 16, 2010

For me its timing. I can smoke a "normal" cigarette in 6 minutes. A 100 takes about 8. I'm gonna need that extra 2 minutes some day.
posted by ducktape at 11:07 AM on February 16, 2010 [1 favorite]

Former (chain) smoker here. As others have said, 100s do NOT have more tobacco than regulars; they're just packed differently. So the problem with 100s is (as others have further noted) that the drag is different, in a way that feels very "off" and distracting if you're used to smokng regulars. Similarly, the balance of a 100 feels wrong in terms of the gesture/ritual involved in holding the cigarette.
posted by scody at 11:21 AM on February 16, 2010

Depends on the smoker. I smoke, and most of the time a normal cigarette is "too much cigarette" for me. 100s would be a waste of money in the long run because I'd be wasting all that extra cigarette.
posted by biochemist at 1:08 PM on February 16, 2010

There are also "short" versions of some cigarettes, which usually sell for the same price, and using the laws of economics, no one would ever buy them because they're not a good value. Smoking and economics don't really go together, though, if you think about it.

Camel "shorts" are unfiltered. They're the same amount of tobacco, in the same shape tube, but without the extra length that comes from slapping a filter on the end.

Some people still don't like filtered cigarettes. Their options are (a) buy shorts, or (b) buy regular cigarettes and rip the filters off. Assuming the prices are the same, buying shorts makes more sense.
posted by nebulawindphone at 1:26 PM on February 16, 2010

@nebulawindphone. Handrolling your own cigarettes has also increased in popularity with more taxation.

100s were originally marketed to women. They contain roughly the same amount of tobacco.

Random fact - sylvester stallone agreed to have rambo smoke if they donated money to an autism foundation as well as cutting stallone a decent check. He refused to have rocky smoke since rocky is an athlete.
posted by beardlace at 11:46 PM on February 18, 2010