
Cigarette butts are the single greatest source of ocean trash - onetimemanytime
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/plastic-straw-ban-cigarette-butts-are-single-greatest-source-ocean-n903661?icid=related
======
kevcampb
The Ocean Conservancy report has been cited by quite a few articles now, and
it pains me every time I see it. As ever, the conclusions drawn are quite
misleading.

1) The source of the data is cleanup on beaches, not ocean trash. If anything
it's more likely to be representative of items discarded on beaches or
waterways.

2) Cigarette butts are greatest purely in number of individual pieces, not in
terms of weight or volume.

The following paper reports fishing nets to be the largest contributor to
ocean plastic (by volume). Cigarette butts aren't even worthy of a mention in
their report (see Supplementary Table 4 which lists the top 5 items per item
size group).

[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22939-w](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22939-w)

~~~
shireboy
Then it was also 10 Asian rivers that account for most plastic:
[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stemming-the-
plas...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stemming-the-plastic-
tide-10-rivers-contribute-most-of-the-plastic-in-the-oceans/)

I guess I understand it is a hard problem to calculate, but it is an area
where I wish the approach was more reasoned and less governed by fad and hype.
Sure clean and prevent straws and cigarette butts if that’s really a problem,
but divvy our resources in proportion to where data says the issues are...

~~~
wutbrodo
I'm probably what you'd call an environmentalist, but the movement is wrought
with people who are more concerned with getting high off of self-flagellating
moral outrage than fixing problems. Legislative solutions to large polluters
and trash generators don't feel like penance in the same way that individual
sacrifices do, so a huge chunk of people who are nominally concerned with
environmental issues misallocate their complaints, wrt the actual severity of
polluters.

I'm not sure this is solvable, humans being what they are, and I don't think
it's unique to environmental issues.

~~~
sitkack
We probably need (but don’t want) algorithmic control of our actions.

~~~
nielsole
What else is a constitution?

------
woodruffw
Only tangentially related, but I am continually astonished by the absence of
any sort of social norms surrounding cigarette butt disposal. I have
(otherwise environmentally conscious!) friends who smoke, and I've personally
witnessed them flick their cigarettes into gutters and on streets.

As a serious question, without judgment: are there any smokers on HN who can
explain the phenomenon?

~~~
chrisseaton
> are there any smokers on HN who can explain the phenomenon?

Smokers aren't exactly known for their good judgement, manners and
consideration for others in the first place, are they?

~~~
lmilcin
Smoking is addiction that is demonstrably bad for your health and has no
benefits.

I grew up in an environment where smoking was encouraged and I can understand
a person that conforms to their buddies. I have personally never tasted it but
when I was teen virtually everybody smoked and it took a lot of willpower to
withstand the pressure.

I think these days, in western world, except for schools, low income
neighborhoods and low income jobs to be smoking means you have not enough
willpower to end it. I would say most middle class people and office workers
do not encourage smoking or will actively discourage it and smoking is mostly
treated as a disease.

~~~
cgag
there are tons of benefits which is why people do it

~~~
ndnxhs
Such as?

~~~
yayana
A social network with other smokers in proximity. Regular breaks from work
that they don't forget to make. Regular time outside of a sealed office
space..

There are definite short term advantages to smokers. There (_)used to be
similar short term advantages for those who drank during work hours when it
was socially acceptable.

(_ Used to might be wrong.. Startups with designated drinking times that seem
to be mandatory are annoying but not irrational given their short term
interests.)

~~~
ndnxhs
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I'm lucky that at my current job none of us
smoke and still regularly take quick walks outside of the office. I guess it
helps that every room has a door that goes directly outside.

------
Synaesthesia
Quote from article:

A leading tobacco industry academic, a California lawmaker and a worldwide
surfing organization are among those arguing cigarette filters should be
banned. The nascent campaign hopes to be bolstered by linking activists
focused on human health with those focused on the environment.

“It’s pretty clear there is no health benefit from filters. They are just a
marketing tool. And they make it easier for people to smoke"

I used to smoke rolled cigarettes with mild tobacco without filters
(thankfully quit) but I thought they were just as mild as filtered cigarettes.
Smokers anyway self-modulate how much they inhale.

~~~
jcoffland
I smoked both when I was younger and dumber. Unfiltered cigarettes turn your
fingers, lips and teeth brown.

~~~
adetrest
Filtered cigarettes do too, just slower. Look at people who've been smoking
for a decade or two: their nails are yellow, their teeth are yellow, the hand
holding the cigarette also has visible damage.

~~~
notyourwork
I think this is more specific to the tobacco and not the premise of whether it
or isn't filtered. People who chew tobacco have similar yellowing of their
fingers they use to pinch.

------
chewz
I have heard that throwing a cigarette butt in a water makes 1 cubic meter of
water toxic. Can't provide a source though - someone told me that when sailing
together.

Toxicity of cigarette butts, and their chemical components, to marine and
freshwater fish[1]

[1] -
[https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/20/Suppl_1/i25](https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/20/Suppl_1/i25)

------
qwerty456127
Why do people even smoke cigarettes when there are vapes for those who just
want to inhale and exhale a cloud getting nicotine and cigars for those who
want to enjoy real tobacco? Cigarettes are disgusting, toxic, expensive (as
compared to a supply of liquid) and inconvenient (as you can't just inhale at
any time you want). Why non-biodegradable cig filters are still not outlawed
is another mystery.

~~~
uxp100
Cigarettes taste like burning paper, and at their best smell just OK, but most
smokers aren't walking around with cigarillos, despite the better ones tasting
and smelling very nice.

It's about nicotine delivery, and even the new hit with the kids, Juul, seems
not as nice as a cigarette to me as a very infrequent nicotine user. Maybe box
mods are different, I've only every tried the types of vapes you can get at
tobacco shops and gas stations and such.

As a side note, I'm surprised snuff isn't more popular. It gives a noticeable
but not overwhelming stimulation, discretely, doesn't have the cultural
connotations or need to spit of chew, and seemed a little milder too. I guess
putting stuff up your nose has it's own connotations. I also don't even know
where you can buy it. Certainly not a gas station.

~~~
jacobush
Snuff taken the way I know it, under the upper lip, gives a slower hit but a
_much stronger_ hit than cigarettes.

What I wonder is about the new "vape-like" pens which heats (real) tobacco but
doesn't burn it. If that is similar enough to cigarettes to win cigarette
smokers over. I would think so, but I'm not a real smoker (only tried a few
times) so can't offer my own anecdata.

~~~
qwerty456127
> What I wonder is about the new "vape-like" pens which heats (real) tobacco
> but doesn't burn it.

I see many people around using it nowadays but I'm sure I wouldn't prefer this
over a good vape and I've also heard it's dangerous as it may also be heating
the filter together with the tobacco so you actually inhale extra toxines.

BTW about vapes - although I believe these are generally healthier than any
kind of cigarettes (and so do many doctors unofficially) I've heard many
liquids (usually flavoured like vanilla, maple, coconut or caramel) contain
diacetyl, pentanedione and/or acetoin so you can "popcorn lung" syndrome
(which is much more dangerous than what ordinary cigs do) quickly [1]

[1] [http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-
releases/e-cigarette-...](http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-
releases/e-cigarette-flavoring-chemicals-linked-to-respiratory-disease/)

~~~
jacobush
The one I saw (ploom?) was intended for loose tobacco.

------
jcoffland
But last week it was fishing gear.

Although, it's bullshit that so many smokers think it's perfectly OK to throw
their butts just about anywhere.

~~~
fyfy18
In the UK it can be met with a £80 fine but I've never heard of anyone (other
than the sensationalist news articles in the likes of The Sun) ever getting
hit with it. I guess it's not worth the red tape for police to hand out fines.

~~~
DanBC
> I guess it's not worth the red tape for police to hand out fines.

It's not normally police who issue the penalty notice, but local council
staff. This means there's a lot of variation across the country. Some councils
outsource this to companies who are a bit too vigorous in giving penalty
notices. The aim is to prevent litter, not to raise revenue, so they're
supposed to give you a chance to pick up your litter to avoid the fine but
some don't do that.

[https://www.gov.uk/guidance/fixed-penalty-notices-issuing-
an...](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/fixed-penalty-notices-issuing-and-
enforcement-by-councils)

The advice about when to, and when not to, issue FPNs covers the point about
giving people the opportunity to pick up litter:
[https://www.gov.uk/guidance/enforcement-officers-issuing-
fix...](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/enforcement-officers-issuing-fixed-
penalty-notices)

~~~
throwawayjava
_> so they're supposed to give you a chance to pick up your litter to avoid
the fine but some don't do that._

That seems like an ineffective mechanism. Just litter and pick it up in the
very rare cases where you get called out.

If I were council dictator for a day, I would make the fines stiff and
immediate but require that 100%^1 of the revenues are refunded to all
residents at the end of each year.

That way there's still a stiff disincentive to littering, but no significant
incentive for abusive/dishonest enforcement.

[^1]: (perhaps sans some low and more importantly _fixed_ amount to cover
enforcement costs)

------
ada1981
I wonder what a world where molecular level tagging of products combined with
penalties for illegal disposal would look like?

I’ve also been seeing JUUL butts / fake USB drives piling up all over NYC.

They really ought to have a desposit or recycling program for those.

------
jngreenlee
Honk + Thumbs Down at any driver you see tossing one out the window. Public
shaming (not anger like a middle finger) can be very effective.

That said, this is probably 90% China as we saw with the ocean plastics source
data. Not sure if this approach would work there.

------
bestskiieronthe
Maybe there's an opportunity for cigarette manufacturers to capitalize on
compostable filters? Can it be done?

~~~
coretx
Roll your own from pure tobacco without a filter, saves your health, wallet
and the environment.

------
jason_slack
There is a company, TerraCycle, that has a cigarette recycling program:

[https://www.terracycle.com/en-US/collection-
programs?utf8=%E...](https://www.terracycle.com/en-US/collection-
programs?utf8=%E2%9C%93&query=cigarette&location=)

Fun fact, this same company had a tv show: [https://itunes.apple.com/us/tv-
season/human-resources-season...](https://itunes.apple.com/us/tv-season/human-
resources-season-1/id891111356)

More info:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TerraCycle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TerraCycle)

------
jobigoud
This reads as a good news somehow, because it sounds like a solvable problem.

~~~
narag
I quit years ago, so not sure but, don't vaporizers are much more convenient
and less harming (avoiding tar)? Guess price is worse or I don't understand
why they haven't wiped out cigarrettes.

~~~
krisroadruck
Less harmful yes, more convenient no. You can grab a pack of cigarettes at any
gas station but vaping requires a little more planning in most cases. You have
to find and go to a specialty shop (vape shop) or order online. This probably
doesn't sound like a huge deal but if you've been smoking for a decade + and
are used to a refill being as simple as dropping into any corner store you
don't develop the habit of planning ahead.

Also while there was a brief moment in time where switching to vaping gave you
the ability to go back inside, that was pretty much wiped out within 2 or so
years of the devices gaining popularity as people treat vapers just as shitty
as they treat smokers, perhaps even more so.

As to price, it can go either way depending on how you do it. If you are
picking up eJuice by the bottle you can actually save quite a bit of money
compared to traditional cigarettes. If you are using a pod system like JUUL
you either break even or lose money in comparison. I kind of switch back and
forth because while the juice option is cheaper its also messier and more
inconvenient, where something like a JUUL is a lot closer to the experience of
a regular cigarette. Tiny stick in your pocket with disposable pods vs giant
eVapeDick that needs you to stop and disassemble it to fill it or change out
the atomizer and blows giant unnecessary clouds.

Source: 25 year smoker, switched to vaping in 2010.

------
systematical
How is it 2019 and tobacco is not illegal?

~~~
xena
Literally grandfathered in :/

------
Nomentatus
I have something of a rule re friends - if I see them doing something I would
simply never, ever do (for ethical reasons) then whether it's a small thing or
a big one; I end the friendship. I know a much bigger ethical lapse will be
coming. When I've bent this rule, as I did for one fellow I liked a lot who
tossed his butts wherever, I found out a couple of years later that I'd have
been much better off dropping him out of my life the first time he tossed a
butt.

------
menzoic
By mass or quantity?

~~~
lmilcin
By who pays the person, it seems like a promotional article. The article is a
joke. Just because it floats on beaches doesn't mean the entire ocean is
polluted the same way. Also we already know what is floating in the oceans,
there are numerous studies.

------
chiefalchemist
Yea. Ocean pollution is a problem. But using amount / volume collected is (for
me) a misleading metric.

Plaatics (floating everywhere)? Micro-plastics? Chemicals (that can't be
collected)? All come to mind.

At the risk of sounding like a cynic / conspiracy theorist, this particular
take on the issue feels as if it came out of the covert comms dept of Big Oil.

------
codecamper
Would it be possible to embed an rf (or otherwise) ID into every single piece
of non organic matter?

Some kind of code that gets assigned to you when you buy the items. And if
those items are found in nature, then you are fined.

Possible?

------
codecamper
Another way to deal with this problem is to simply get rid of filters. Let
people that smoke die from cancer earlier & maybe fewer people will smoke.
Maybe offer a re-usable filter?

~~~
SuoDuanDao
Now I'm imagining those long cigarette holders from the classic movies making
a comeback. Funny image.

------
Hydraulix989
Won’t be surprised if plastic quickly surpasses cigarette butts. Literally
everything is plastic, meanwhile the shift is away towards electronics like
JUUL.

~~~
Eric_WVGG
I naively thought vapes would at least leave cleaner streets than cigarettes.
Lately I’ve been seeing plastic juul cartridges littering the sidewalks in
nyc. There’s no winning.

~~~
dokem
There's no fixing shitty people.

------
beerlord
Why don't countries regulate the butts to ensure they are more readily
biodegradable?

------
treebeard901
Is the plan now to add a layer of juul pods?

------
EamonnMR
I wonder, will the same people who demanded that plastic straws go away now
attack smokers with similar zeal?

~~~
Jach
Probably not, because the large majority of homeless people are smokers, and
they've got enough troubles.

------
DoctorOetker
1)

The most effective portable ashtray I saw, was when it was handed out on a
festival: they were the classic analog camera film canisters, they close
really airtight.

To adress the dumping of cigeratte _filters_ not buds, why not simply put ever
larger return deposits (like many nations have on certain glass bottles etc)
on the filters? If your pack of cigarettes cost say $20, but $30 dollars extra
for the filters, then smokers _will_ keep their filters and turn them in when
they buy their new pack. OK, a lot of people behave irrationally when drinking
while smoking, but some of the present smokers will still be cheap enough to
collect all the filters that people leave in the local ashtray instead of in
their portable ones... The difference is between $50 or $20 for the next pack
of cigarettes. Use the same per filter price for loose filters for the people
who roll cigarettes.

2)

I am addicted to smoking, and smoke cigarettes without filter. As far as I
understand both paper and tobacco biodegrade. On the street I throw the butts
(not filters!) in the gutters, preferentially through the grid straight into
the sewer.

I have had many discussions with other smokers, and there is a guaranteed
subject that returns: whenever the taxes and hence prices of tobacco products
rise a fraction of the previous cost. Just like the smokers are addicted to
the cigarettes, the tobacco companies _and the government_ are "addicted to
the smokers" or rather: exploit the smokers.

Over ten years that I smoke the price has more than tripled perhaps quadrupled
(Belgium, Europe). The justification behind increasing the prices is always to
encourage people to stop smoking. The discussion I have with these other
smokers whenever the price has risen always ends with the same conclusion:
they don't want us to stop smoking, they just want to extract more money by
using small increments, and letting us get accustomed to the new price. We
always reach the conclusion it would be better to not let the price rise for a
couple of years and then _double_ the price of tobacco products. A lot of
people would stop simply because they don't economically agree to the new
price, and many who want to stop but have a hard time because their friends
are still smoking would have an easier time because it would _synchronize_ our
efforts to stop smoking. Obviously that will lead to a substantial loss of
income to both tobacco industry and government, who are sponsoring various
cancer treatments (both tobacco related and unrelated cancers) with the income
from tobacco products. The "beautiful" aspect is that in contrast to non-
addictive products the lobbyists for tobacco companies don't even need to
bribe government, since government has been co-opted through taxation.

If we really wish to clear up the cigarette filters, stop smoking, and lower
future health care costs we should look at the "half-life" of cigarettes/euro,
and keep the price constant but double it every such half-life. That would
really give all smokers a memento mori to reconsider our habits, ... but
similarily it would also force tobacco industry _and government_ to kick off
the lucrative income from smokers!

As a smoker (but otherwise a very stubborn person) I can tell you we don't
have the spine to quit, certainly not on the basis of a 5% increasee in price!
Whack us with a price doubling! Then nearly all my friends who smoke, and
unknown people I may meet at performances, events, bars would stop in
synchrony.

3)

Wasn't the mass introduction of filters at least partially a marketing ploy
minimize the health concerns as they started to rise in public perception? How
effective are filters really? Are those smokers who were intimidated into
buying more expensive and "healthier" cigarettes by both industry and family
(indirectly still industry) really the cause of the current widespread
pollution of these filters? Or were it the marketers, similar to all the
pollution of plastic water bottles? A marketing ploy in the quest for money,
with the side effect of polluting nature?

