Talk:Natural American Spirit

Random discussion
corporate Luntz-ian solicitors

Today:

Included the "Jerry" but reinserted his name as it appeared in the State's documents.

The State's argument stated clearly that the statement "additive free" was mileading, therefore, they needed to disclose that it didn't mean they were safer cigarettes - it may have been a "loaded" (as the cigarettes are with carcinogens) word, but it described what specific action Natural American Spirit cigarette brand, nee Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company nee Reynolds American nee R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (the head of the beast should always be named), had to tkae.

The commercial definition of "natural" should also be included in this article for clarification. "Natural" is another misleading (loaded?) word that is being used flagrantly by all sorts of Corporate Persons to deceive the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waterflaws (talk • contribs) 19:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah that so cute. That`s exactly what the consumers wanted to hear, a cigarette that helps native americans and without adaptives. Strange thing it`s produced by the same factories that make the evil cigarettes. I think this is the biggest PR-thing since a long time but it will work. So everyone please smoke the native americans back to life!
 * Are there any independent tests of this tobacco out there ? In light of the very biased article about this product it would be wise to include other sources in the article that can balance what appears at the moment to be a biased sales promotion article for the product DJ Barney (talk) 23:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Good idea thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.233.179 (talk) 02:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

they cannot be part of hippie subculture because they were not around then. i don't care what a doctor says. mAybe hipster subculture.

so you're saying hippies don't exist today?

I don't think "hipster" accurately describes it. Maybe "neo-hippie" to distinguish between then and now, but hipster is something different altogether.Renminbi 22:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think hipster does accurately describe it. At least in the mid-Atlantic region, Spirits are the cigarette of choice by hipsters and company. 12 July 2006

I added John Cusack as a known smoker. I've seen him mention more than once that he smokes the menthol flavor. --Dayshuffler 06:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

free basing
I've found on The Why Files that American Spirits still contain more free-base nicotine than the other commercial brands, and are probably less safe from the addiction angle.1 Lowmagnet 15:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Organically grown?
The majority of American Spirit cigarettes don't contain organically grown tobacco. There are some varieties that are specifically organic though.Renminbi 22:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Organic !?
Todo (for someone): Specify that the cigarettes are not organic. The quote in the 3rd paragraph makes this fact unclear.

Removal of "Cigarette brands" category
I have removed Category:Cigarette brands from this article because Category:R.J. Reynolds brands is a sub-category of the former. It defeats the purpose of having this subcategory if we're going to list the articles in both. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Discontinued
I was purchasing a pack today, and was informed that they were discontinued?

-I'm not sure where you live, but they are still available in Chicago i was told about the cis. and i would like to try them i would like to be able to quite smoking all together. so can you help me.

NPOV
There's a lot of weasely language here, such as "Although the cigarettes are supposedly additive-free," "Natural American Spirit is reported to contain only whole-leaf tobacco," and "Also, the company claims that it doesn't test any of their products on animals, and they purportedly donate a portion of their revenues to Native American charities." Seems to be no need to put all these modifiers in, unless the editor felt that the company is lying about their claims. Dieziege 06:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this should be cleaned up Cybersavior 09:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Known Smokers - Cite Sources
It would be beneficial to this section of the article if contributors would cite their source of information via a web link when available. See the entry for Zach de la Rocha for an example of how to do this.

Furthermore, I would delete the whole section completely. Where is the encyclopedic relevance for this extended and unsourced list? I'm deleting this list right away. Or could anybody in favor of the list please explain why it would matter? It reads more like "see how many really cool and famous people smoke this brand!"-advertising. Hardern 12:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, for one, it's a niche product that has gained prominence despite being relatively hard to find compared to Marlboro, Camel, Kool, etc. Its sales and availability are dwarfed by most brands that have as much prominence. Listing people who smoke the brand might shed light on why it's even visible in the landscape of cigarettes in the first place. - Jordinho (the only one who cited a source... what, no applause?)


 * So? There are plenty of niche products covered throughout Wikipedia, and few of them are affiliated with a specific person. I think its just a waste of space to list every x,y, z celebrity who smokes the brand, or in fact, to reference every product that some famous person uses, unless there is some extraordinary reason why (like the Brown M&M rule in Van Halen). SiberioS 18:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Addtives in rolling papers
I sent an email to the Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, and got the following info on their rolling papers: Thank you for your email.

The paper used to make Natural American Spirit Cigarettes contains only natural wood cellulose, calcium carbonate, citric acid, and water.

Wood cellulose is a biodegradable material commonly used in the manufacture of paper products.

Calcium carbonate is a white, water-insoluble, crystalline compound naturally occurring in various forms such as limestone, calcite, and chalk. It serves two purposes in our cigarette paper: to increase the opacity so the tobacco is not seen through the paper and to control the porosity.

Calcium carbonate is also used in toothpaste as a cleaning agent; in pharmaceuticals as a tabletting agent; and in foods as a calcium-containing additive.

Citric acid is a water-soluble acid found in abundance in fruits such as lemons, limes, pineapples, etc. It is used in our cigarette paper to insure that the cigarette burns evenly and that the ash maintains a degree of cohesiveness and doesn't continually flake off.

Water is an essential component of our cigarette paper... without it, the paper would be unduly brittle.

We are often asked if chlorine bleach is used to whiten our cigarette paper -and the answer is no. Our cigarette paper is chlorine-free! The biodegradable, natural wood cellulose used to make our paper is oxygenated as it is washed, thus "fading" the natural-color fibers to white.

We hope this information is helpful to you and we appreciate your interest in our products! I realize that this info is not exactly verifiable through a reliable source, and it isn't on their FAQs, so I can't put it in the article, but I thought I'd mention it here. —BorgHunter (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

removed trivia
I removed the "popular culture" trivia. All of it was of the product merely seen on the screen or a celebrity being a smoker of it. I believe that the bar needs to be higher than just seen on screen or smoked by celeb. If the cigarettes were featured or played an integral part of a work of popular culture, I could see inclusion, but not merely it's presence. Charles (Kznf) 17:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I re-removed this popular culture section, based entirely on this guideline WP:TRIVIA and this essay WP:IPC. All of these items were merely appearances of the cigarette.  If a movie had been made which featured this particular cigarette as a plot point, I might see it be included, but none of these match that somewhat higher bar.  Charles (Kznf) 15:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Off-topic chat
random comments?

I think there must be something to the actors tending to smoke American Spirit on the screen. I do not think that we are intended to notice the brand, necessarily. It could easily have to do with the visual characteristics of the smoke, or the fact that they burn more slowly and evenly, allowing for multiple takes with the same cigarette.

And, if I may give some personal testimony, I do think that they aren't as bad for you. I switched to A.S. about 8 years ago and now I can't stand the smell of second-hand from other cigarettes, and I will turn down anything but a 'Spirit unless I'm desperate. The other brands have a definite chemical flavor, burn my throat, and give me a headache, whether I am smoking them or near someone who is.

By and large, I do not trust companies, especially those that are large and destructive in an environmental or human-geographic way, like oil and tobacco companies. But to me, these guys seem pretty honest.

i agree, me too.Enquiring (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. After becoming accustomed to American Spirit, returning to additive saturated tobacco will in fact induce a headache, sickly feeling and a physical disorientation. To begin with, in my experience American Spirit did not satisfy my smoking needs and I believe this is because I was addicted to the additives provided in other tobacco products. However, after several years of smoking American Spirit I cannot return to tobacco products that contain additives because there is a bold experiential contrast in doing so and this involves headaches and profound sickly smell, taste and thus feeling from dong so. In conclusion, I have not chemically tested American Spirit or any other tobacco product to verify their claims, debunk them or compare but we all know what makes us feel sick, then we act on it. B.C 11/3/2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.12.251.241 (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article's topic. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Naturalamericanspirit.jpg
Image:Naturalamericanspirit.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Additive Free
This cigarette is one brand of several additive-free cigarettes. That is to say, it does not contain any of the 599 cigarette additives in the wikipedia list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_additives_in_cigarettes But there is no link from the article on this brand to other articles on brands of additive free cigarettes nor is there a Wikipedia article discussing additive free cigarettes in general. Why? It is probable that some users will come to Wikipedia seeking information on this topic. rumjal 08:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Simply put, the English site of Wikipeida is primarily use by people from the US, UK, and Australia; three countries that still ALLOW manufactures to include chemicals in the cigarettes. They are also three of the FEW countries that make and/or require ambiguous or blatantly false statements to the public such as "additive free does not mean a safer cigarette" and the like. Cigarette additives have been banned from tobacco, making a SAFE cigarette, in 72 countries. Since the general public in other non-ban countries are not told of the WHO studies that have proven that tobacco is ("comparatively") safe for smoking, and has been for thousands of years, and that only the chemicals are dangerous, there is little of a movement and no coverage to the benefits of additive-free tobacco. What other brands are available in non-ban countries besides American Spirit and RJ Free (the Camel cigarettes from ban countries rebranded for US/Japan sale)? Lostinlodos (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It might be a good idea to add references for these WHO studies to the article. I'd like to see them and I'm sure many other readers would as well.  Earlier you said there were no studies on this subject. 67.158.72.135 (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? The WHO clearly says that additve free cigarettes are NOT less harmful than other cigarettes. Smoking is ALWAYS highly carcinogenic! 5.104.220.101 (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

But at the same time they agree with many studies that encourage regulation of toxic and addictive ingredients. The regulations that require 'does not mean a safer cigarette' also publish pictures on packets that list some of these additives as a reason you shouldn't smoke! Carcinogenic, yes, but discussing addictiveness, toxicity, allergens, irritants reads as 'not less carcinogenic' not 'not less harmful'. However, there appears to be no straight answer from anyone, personally those around me notice respiratory and withdrawal improvements short term, but that is our only evidence! I am not sure this claim as stated above requires the tobacco to be completely unprocessed, is american spirit not cured like anything else? Some quick research shows they may use the more carcigen producing form of curing, which might explain results of these studies levelling out whilst KNOWN toxicants and addictive substances are added to the other. Who knows! clarification needed. But it seems if there are KNOWN toxic and addictive chemicals added, the implications are obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.64.86 (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article's topic. - Sum mer PhD, v2.0 14:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Reorded §,
I reordered a paragraph to make it clear that the US Federal Government requires the notices on the packages, that it is not the company (RJR, SFTC) that actively marketed, or agreed with the warnings in any way. Also (re)added note of questionableness regarding the mandated claims of dangers as no independent (not from tobacco industry nor health-related industry) study has ever linked tobacco to health ailments.Lostinlodos (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

New references
The claim that there are no known health risks to tobacco use (as opposed to tobacco plus additives) is absurd. I've added a couple of references refuting it, but I'd prefer to just delete any discussion of that claim for or against. NPOV does not mean we have to bow to every bit of loony wishful thinking that comes along. 128.100.5.116 (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Another editor has attempted to add a dismissal of these as being "Health Industry" publications. That's inappropriate under WP:RS; they are reliable sources.  It is hard to imagine any possibility of scientific research ever not being part of the "Health Industry" as this editor wants to define it.  They are also "detached" (that's the entire point of scientific research), although they don't need to be detached to be appropriate for Wikipedia.  It is not the case that there is "no detached research", and the article should not claim that. 67.158.72.135 (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This latest change should make all of us happy, acknowledging the research, pointing out that it is health-industry related, and that it has not been countered by herbology or histological studies.Lostinlodos (talk) 04:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not "industry-related". It is "detached". The article cannot claim otherwise without a reference. 67.158.72.135 (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Elsewhere on this talk page you mention WHO studies on this subject. If you'd add references to those, they would probably improve the article significantly. 67.158.72.135 (talk) 13:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Package Colors
Are the stated colors taken from a source? If not, I propose that the full flavors be changed to "turquiose" (cyan is brighter), and the mediums to "sage" (celadon is greener - the mediums have a little blue in the green color of the pack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.6.237 (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

..Actually, after looking at the "greens" chart, moss green seems closest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.6.237 (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The colours indicated are not correct any more, or not correct internationally. I don't know the colours myself, I only know that the “Original Blend” shag pouches are orange in Germany. I suggest a source be found and the article state which colours are used in which markets, or, the option I think is more sensible, the section be removed completely. -- Free-zombie (talk) 12:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe one of our local stores will probably have the folding brochure; and if so I could just post an image along with the colours chart. Original is Orange in packages. Lostinlodos (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.54.227 (talk) 13:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Original research
This edit uses material which does not directly discuss "Natural American Spirit", the subject of this article. As such, its introduction here is original research: " To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." As the source does not discuss the topic at all, any use of it in this article is to "reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source". - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding your rationale re: why I'm guilty of violating the WP:NOR principle here.

How are the Carcinogenesis article's claims about the toxicity of nitrate/nitrite levels in the human body any more germane to the entry in question than the claims about the toxicity of nitrate/nitrite levels in the human body that appear in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition article? That the Carcinogenesis article mentions the Natural American Spirit brand by name is, in this case, not finally the point. Here's why: If Natural American Spirit cigarettes had been around in the 1950s, one could easily dig up an article from the 1950s (published in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal) that made the claim that Natural American Spirits were recommended over other brands of cigarettes by physicians. And now, in 2014, if I cited that article in the Natural American Spirit entry, it would be removed because its claims have been invalidated as factually inaccurate by the same medical community who once made them.

My point is this:  The Carcinogenesis article's claims from 1989 are no longer treated as unchallenged "fact" by the medical community . That the link between nitrates/nitrites and cancer is a contentious one among the people who practice medicine is not up for debate because it's right there in the current medical literature.

If you still disagree with the logic of the above argument, then how about one with a completely different tack: The point of that 1989 citation—and its only relevance to the Natural American Spirit entry—is that at certain levels, nitrates/nitrites in the body are toxic. It is not an article solely about Natural American Spirit cigarettes; it is an article about nitrate/nitrite levels in several different brands of cigarettes. So what makes the Natural American Spirit entry a more correct place for that citation than, say, the entry for Nitrates?

The point of the article I cited is that the jury is still out in the scientific community about what level of nitrates/nitrites in the human body constitutes a toxic level. My citation no more constitutes "original research" than the other article cited in the entry does. My edits do not synthesize an original argument—quite the contrary—they provide a source that refutes (or, really, supersedes) the argument in the 1989 citation. How does one article violate the WP:NOR principle and not the other? That one references the entry by name and not the other is not finally the point.

Look, I'm trying my best to make a good faith contribution here. It's not like I'm advancing fringe pseudoscientific claims that smoking cigarettes is good for you. Lighting something on fire and inhaling the smoke is obviously not good for you. I am saying that citing an article that makes outdated claims regarding the causal link between nitrates/nitrites and human illness is no way to go about an anti-smoking argument. Because it's factually incorrect.

Either my edits should be reinstated to provide counterpoint against the factual inaccuracies in the 1989 article, or the 1989 article and related copy should also be removed. Robshort (talk) 01:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Controversy
Are we really not going to mention that people still buy them to be healthy, in spite of the warning? My own mother is convinced that it's the gunk in other cigarettes that cause cancer, not tobacco itself. She seems in denial of the fact that tobacco naturally has nicotine and falls under the trap that "if it's natural, it's good for you!" I believe many smokers who buy this brand have the same minset. I read a blog (http://ecocult.com/2014/whats-the-deal-with-american-spirit-cigarettes/) that mentions that vegans, pregnant women, and other health concious people turn to these cigarettes rather than quitting. This blog isn't a verifiable source, but I believe it.

Anyone with any good references that fan put this in?

There's also the fact that they use a Native American mascot and call themselves "American Spirit". My mom was also under the impression that this was a Native American company, with the U.S Grown pack being mostly (if not entirely) by Native American farmers!

Any good references for that particular misconception? Artheartsoul1 (talk) 08:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There are "misconceptions"/self-delusions about ots of products. Without independent reliable sources discussing them, we have nothing to say. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 14:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Natural American Spirit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150213181414/https://www.americanspirit-info.de/products/cigarettes.php to https://www.americanspirit-info.de/products/cigarettes.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)