Skip Nav
Workouts
25 No-Equipment Moves That Transform Your Body
Healthy Recipes
12 Smoothies That Satisfy Intense Chocolate Cravings
Healthy Recipes
6 Ways to Make Chinese New Year a Healthy Celebration

Camel No. 9: What's Your Opinion?

Camel No. 9: What's Your Opinion?

I am totally amazed that while all the positive developments in banning smoking in restaurants, bars, entire cities and even entire states are moving forward, something so entirely counterproductive in these efforts slips through the cracks. Introducing Camel No. 9, a new cigarette marketed towards women. Though it's meant to mimic Chanel No. 19 and Love Potion No. 9, I can't imagine these cigarettes will make you smell good or fall in love. But hey, who am I to judge?

There have been Camel No. 9 parties promoting the launch of the cigarette. Ladies only nights are being held in bars across the country, offering women facials, manicures, makeup and hair styling; all to be enjoyed while smoking a free pack of Camel No. 9s. You'll even get a goody bags full of treats like chocolates and coupons for drinks and the spa treatments oh, and possibly cancer. Am I missing something here? Smoking and spa treatments never went hand in hand in my book.

Did I mention that lung cancer is the leading cancer killer among women? Personally, I think Camel No. 9 is a monstrosity and I can only hope they pull them from the shelves before my own daughters are teenagers, but what do you think about it all?

Around The Web

POPSUGAR, the #1 independent media and technology company for women. Where more than 75 million women go for original, inspirational content that feeds their passions and interests.

Join The Conversation
Butrfly4404 Butrfly4404 8 years
Oh, and I agree with facen8me. You can look away from the person who is disgusting you with how much they are eating (Why are you watching them ANYWAY?) - you can't look away from smoke filling your air space.
Butrfly4404 Butrfly4404 8 years
How funny (ironic funny, not HaHa funny) - but I saw these and actually said, "Why didn't they have those when I smoked?" Marketing guy did his job! I agree with the only comment I read, which was the first one.
Butrfly4404 Butrfly4404 8 years
How funny (ironic funny, not HaHa funny) - but I saw these and actually said, "Why didn't they have those when I smoked?" Marketing guy did his job! I agree with the only comment I read, which was the first one.
fiestygirl fiestygirl 8 years
Wow! This is really shocking. This campaign that targets females is both disgusting and manipulative...and the unfortunate part is that you all are proving the point. Let's consider why would a cigarette company choice to target the female population. Afterall, females have been the majority (with their own jobs and spending money) for quite a while. Did anyone read about Dana Reeve's death? About all of the research that was highlighted at the time....that 20% women who develop lung cancer NEVER smoked, whereas this is the case in only 8% of male lung cancer pts. Hmmm, so women are more susceptible to SECONDHAND SMOKE, lung cancer AND BREAST CANCER. Isn't this interesting....and how timely of Camel to move in on this vulnerable population to get them hooked, before word has spread to the unknowing masses. As usual, I would be happy to point anyone questioning these facts to the appropriate journals....
facin8me facin8me 8 years
Yvette-How does a person next to you overeating impact your health? Is there some new second-hand fatness that you know about? If so, enlighten the rest of us. The health risks of secondhand smoke, on the other hand, are well documented. If smokers want to give themselves heart disease and lung cancer, go for it. But since smoking effects the health of the people around the smoker, those people have a right to say something and even (gasp!) roll their eyes at the smoker's selfishness.
facin8me facin8me 8 years
Yvette- How does a person next to you overeating impact your health? Is there some new second-hand fatness that you know about? If so, enlighten the rest of us. The health risks of secondhand smoke, on the other hand, are well documented. If smokers want to give themselves heart disease and lung cancer, go for it. But since smoking effects the health of the people around the smoker, those people have a right to say something and even (gasp!) roll their eyes at the smoker's selfishness.
yvette yvette 8 years
I think it hilarious how people give themselves the idea that it's ok to constantly attack smokers.Yes, smoking is nasty but I don't doubt someone going "ew ew ew" is going to make someone quit. The thing is Camel like any other company has one thing in mind, PROFIT. So, I keep asking myself when can I tell an obese person that they are absolutley repulsing me with the third helping of cake and make them stop? Is that socially acceptable now? I constanly see non-smokers rolling their eyes when someone lights up. I do when someone stuffs their face. I mean both things are negative to your health, but why can we bash smokers not overweight (I can't even say fat, with someone getting offended) people. All in all, I've noticed SOME none-smokers like the high-horse the're riding when they tell someone that "that thing is going to kill you." If I smoked and an overweight person told me to quit and explain to me that its bad to my lealth, I would literary laugh in their face. Wow. That was one PMS rant. But my opinion stays the same.
Swangeese Swangeese 8 years
I don't see a problem with the promotion. Yes cigarettes are gross, but they are a LEGAL product. A company has the right to promote a product for adults to adults whether or not you happen to like it. As a non-smoker, the night of camel beauty is absolutely unappealing.I hate cigarettes, but I also hate self-righteous militant anti-smokers. It's not about health, it's all about imposing your will on others in so that you can feel better about yourself. The same people who rail against cigarettes are usually the same ones driving around in gas guzzling vehicles.
Swangeese Swangeese 8 years
I don't see a problem with the promotion. Yes cigarettes are gross, but they are a LEGAL product. A company has the right to promote a product for adults to adults whether or not you happen to like it. As a non-smoker, the night of camel beauty is absolutely unappealing. I hate cigarettes, but I also hate self-righteous militant anti-smokers. It's not about health, it's all about imposing your will on others in so that you can feel better about yourself. The same people who rail against cigarettes are usually the same ones driving around in gas guzzling vehicles.
muchacha muchacha 8 years
hahaha mwms I completely agree with you!! Much more interesting and thought-provoking.
mwmsjuly19 mwmsjuly19 8 years
Whoa. I hate cigarettes but am loving reading this comment thread. Lively. It's waaay more interesting than other discussions about Sarah Michelle Gellar's cuteness or Ben Affleck on holiday surfing.
krampalicious krampalicious 8 years
wow, seriously, early violence? you're really going to pull the "willpower" argument? it's pretty obvious where your loyalties lie, which is fine. props to your dad for making mad cash. here's something, however, that he and the rest of the tobacco companies would rather not tell you: cigarettes are addictive. and the companies add more than just nicotine to make them even more addictive. it's not a question of "will power," although it does take a tremendous amount of it to quit for good. your body goes through withdrawal when you quit smoking, much like an addict to any other substance. why do you think so many people try to quit smoking again and again but still fail? it is so ridiculously hard to quit and it is a true achievement when someone actually does quit. to hear that kind of nonsense from someone within the industry makes my skin crawl. i can't say i'm surprised, however, except at the fact you're not a smoker yourself.it's one thing to say that no one forces people to smoke, that it's a personal choice, because it is. but don't go spewing clueless corporate bedtime stories your daddy told you that all you need is will power to put down a product designed to make you a user for life. of course, the more people who quit, that's less money in your pocket, so i can understand why it would make you upset.
krampalicious krampalicious 8 years
wow, seriously, early violence? you're really going to pull the "willpower" argument? it's pretty obvious where your loyalties lie, which is fine. props to your dad for making mad cash. here's something, however, that he and the rest of the tobacco companies would rather not tell you: cigarettes are addictive. and the companies add more than just nicotine to make them even more addictive. it's not a question of "will power," although it does take a tremendous amount of it to quit for good. your body goes through withdrawal when you quit smoking, much like an addict to any other substance. why do you think so many people try to quit smoking again and again but still fail? it is so ridiculously hard to quit and it is a true achievement when someone actually does quit. to hear that kind of nonsense from someone within the industry makes my skin crawl. i can't say i'm surprised, however, except at the fact you're not a smoker yourself. it's one thing to say that no one forces people to smoke, that it's a personal choice, because it is. but don't go spewing clueless corporate bedtime stories your daddy told you that all you need is will power to put down a product designed to make you a user for life. of course, the more people who quit, that's less money in your pocket, so i can understand why it would make you upset.
trendyindc trendyindc 8 years
Amen Haley! That's the problem! If they weren't "cool" looking, they probably wouldn't sell and they're targeting girls who are young. I'm 21 and I sure wouldn't start smoking now, but I know in high school people did for the sheer cool factor. Ick.P.S. The Canadian packaging is AWESOME. Google it if you've never seen it.
trendyindc trendyindc 8 years
Amen Haley! That's the problem! If they weren't "cool" looking, they probably wouldn't sell and they're targeting girls who are young. I'm 21 and I sure wouldn't start smoking now, but I know in high school people did for the sheer cool factor. Ick. P.S. The Canadian packaging is AWESOME. Google it if you've never seen it.
haleymichelled haleymichelled 8 years
i dont think these cigarettes are marketed towards women; more like towards little 16 year old girls. They are bright pink and scream COOL GIRLY CIGARETTE TO SHOW OFF TO YOUR FRIENDS. They also taste like air. good way to start off a smoking habit. Next thing you know, your smoking a pack of reds a day.whatever though dont blame the cigarette company. THey would be idiots if they tried to market this light fluffy cigarette to 60 year old cowboys. they just want to put food on the table- cut them a break
haleymichelled haleymichelled 8 years
i dont think these cigarettes are marketed towards women; more like towards little 16 year old girls. They are bright pink and scream COOL GIRLY CIGARETTE TO SHOW OFF TO YOUR FRIENDS. They also taste like air. good way to start off a smoking habit. Next thing you know, your smoking a pack of reds a day. whatever though dont blame the cigarette company. THey would be idiots if they tried to market this light fluffy cigarette to 60 year old cowboys. they just want to put food on the table- cut them a break
pixelhaze pixelhaze 8 years
cravin - thanks for the reply, sorry that everyone kind of ganged up on you. On the plus side it's great that you've managed to cut down your habit! ecann - your comment about the old ads reminded me about something I read once. Waaay back in the day doctors and even schools encouraged smoking because they thought it was good for you. Something about how it would kill toxins in your body? (HAHA)And I guess I should add that one of the reasons Im so firecely opposed to smoking is because of what it did to my grandfather. No matter what people told him he just couldn't stop. Then one day his doctor told him that if he didn't give it up they would have to amputate his leg. That was when he finally stopped. A year later he lost his leg, the damage was so severe that his effort came too late. What really saddens me the most about this story is that his daughter (my aunt) and even her son (my cousin) still smoke. Even after they saw what it did to him, they still can't give it up. That's how powerful those little sticks are, and it saddens me so much. I also have an aunt who, along with her husband, periodically stops and start smoking again. She can never fully give it up. Sometimes I think really the only way to get people to stop smoking is to keep them from starting. So sorry if I offend anyone, I don't mean to, but I really have very strong opinions about this.
pixelhaze pixelhaze 8 years
cravin - thanks for the reply, sorry that everyone kind of ganged up on you. On the plus side it's great that you've managed to cut down your habit! ecann - your comment about the old ads reminded me about something I read once. Waaay back in the day doctors and even schools encouraged smoking because they thought it was good for you. Something about how it would kill toxins in your body? (HAHA) And I guess I should add that one of the reasons Im so firecely opposed to smoking is because of what it did to my grandfather. No matter what people told him he just couldn't stop. Then one day his doctor told him that if he didn't give it up they would have to amputate his leg. That was when he finally stopped. A year later he lost his leg, the damage was so severe that his effort came too late. What really saddens me the most about this story is that his daughter (my aunt) and even her son (my cousin) still smoke. Even after they saw what it did to him, they still can't give it up. That's how powerful those little sticks are, and it saddens me so much. I also have an aunt who, along with her husband, periodically stops and start smoking again. She can never fully give it up. Sometimes I think really the only way to get people to stop smoking is to keep them from starting. So sorry if I offend anyone, I don't mean to, but I really have very strong opinions about this.
facin8me facin8me 8 years
M155 J4CK13:Whatever tip of the iceberg existed in the case for smokers rights probably melted 25 years ago. Despite Richard Doll's distinguished record early in his research career, he spent the latter part of his life as an industry lapdog for any company that would throw money his way. Seeing as that it's known that he defended the products of Dow, Monsanto, and Turner & Newall (an asbestos company!), his 2001 statement dismissing secondhand smoke lacks all credibility. Though you cite a 1998 WHO study, I'd like to point out that nine years ago. Recent evidence, including the 2004 monograph from the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a 2005 from the California EPA, and a 2006 report from the US Surgeon General have, has shown an unambiguous link between secondhand smoke and adverse health effects. These effects include heart disease, lung cancer, breast cancer, respiratory illnesses, among others. The 1992 EPA report you cite is actually an early 1993 report that was attacked by RJ Reynolds, but has actually been subject to open public review and by a panel of independent scientific experts. The panel endorsed the methodology and the conclusions of the report. Anybody who reads the above comments by M155 J4CK13 should be aware that her "source," FOREST, is actually a "astroturf" group in the UK that receives almost all of its funding from the tobacco industry.
facin8me facin8me 8 years
M155 J4CK13: Whatever tip of the iceberg existed in the case for smokers rights probably melted 25 years ago. Despite Richard Doll's distinguished record early in his research career, he spent the latter part of his life as an industry lapdog for any company that would throw money his way. Seeing as that it's known that he defended the products of Dow, Monsanto, and Turner & Newall (an asbestos company!), his 2001 statement dismissing secondhand smoke lacks all credibility. Though you cite a 1998 WHO study, I'd like to point out that nine years ago. Recent evidence, including the 2004 monograph from the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a 2005 from the California EPA, and a 2006 report from the US Surgeon General have, has shown an unambiguous link between secondhand smoke and adverse health effects. These effects include heart disease, lung cancer, breast cancer, respiratory illnesses, among others. The 1992 EPA report you cite is actually an early 1993 report that was attacked by RJ Reynolds, but has actually been subject to open public review and by a panel of independent scientific experts. The panel endorsed the methodology and the conclusions of the report. Anybody who reads the above comments by M155 J4CK13 should be aware that her "source," FOREST, is actually a "astroturf" group in the UK that receives almost all of its funding from the tobacco industry.
sarabel sarabel 8 years
a cigarette is a cigarette and they can market themselves however they want but they are proven to cause cancer and be addicting. i'm not for outlawing them but i also don't understand people who smoke them and think they are immune from the damage they cause.
EcannDallas EcannDallas 8 years
early violence are you kidding me with that logic? tobacco in itself isnt necessarily as bad...( i mean any carcinogens arent good for you) its all the poison and toxins that are put into the cigarettes which i guess you call "flavorings" that your dads company kills people with. my grandmother died of lung cancer from cigarettes and she quit smoking almost 20 years ago when cigarette companies were forced to be truthful. she was lied to basically. literally there are old advertisements saying how more DOCTORS smoke camels than any other brand and that disgusts me....i know you are biased because your livlihood depends on people smoking....but come on.
muchacha muchacha 8 years
and for the record, that surely is not going to happen while there are special interest groups on capitol hill.
Latest Fitness
X