Considerable evidence exists that little cigars are popular among African American adolescents and young adults who smoke. However, few studies have been published on the use of this tobacco product by young blacks in the United States. This research investigated little-cigar use among students at a historically black university in the southeastern United States.
As a follow-up to a survey on tobacco use among freshmen that revealed unexpectedly high rates of little-cigar use, 3 focus groups were conducted with current or former smokers of little cigars. Topics included preferred brands of little cigars, preference for little cigars over cigarettes, social contexts for smoking little cigars, perceived health risks of smoking little cigars relative to smoking cigarettes, and thoughts about quitting.
Focus group participants preferred little cigars to cigarettes for various reasons, among them taste, smell, a better "buzz," social purposes, status, and perceptions that smoking little cigars is less addictive and less harmful than smoking cigarettes. Opinions on health risks varied; some participants believed that health risks can be reduced by removing the inner liner of little cigars.
Use of little cigars should be addressed in tobacco research, use prevention, and use cessation efforts, targeting students at historically black colleges and perhaps other young African Americans. Results also suggest that clear distinctions should be made among cigarettes, little cigars, and cigars, and that tobacco use prevention and cessation programs should debunk myths that little cigars are a safe alternative to cigarettes. Study findings should be confirmed and elucidated through additional research.
Evidence exists in both scientific literature (
African Americans aged 18 to 24 years are less likely to smoke tobacco than their white contemporaries (
Smoking behaviors include choosing tobacco products. This paper focuses on the use of little cigars (e.g., Black & Milds, Swisher Sweets). Also known as
The health risks associated with smoking cigars are well documented (
A literature review revealed only a few published studies that specifically address the use of little cigars. Malone et al (
Richter et al (
In one of the few studies to explore why youth use cigars, Soldz and Dorsey (
The largest exploration of young people's patterns of cigar use and their perceptions of cigar health risk was conducted by the Office of the Inspector General (
The research described here was conducted among students at a historically black university in the southeastern United States. Focus groups of current or former smokers of little cigars were used to explore reasons for using this product, the contexts of that use, and perceived health risks of smoking little cigars.
In fall 2003, a brief paper-and-pencil, self-administered survey on tobacco use was conducted in sections of a required freshman course at a historically black university. The survey revealed unexpectedly high rates of little-cigar use. Of the 684 students (219 male and 465 female) who completed the survey, 25% (63 male students and 107 female students) reported smoking tobacco in the past 30 days. Asked what products they had smoked in the past month, students reported little cigars much more often than cigarettes (74% vs 44%). The preference for little cigars over cigarettes was stronger among male students than among female students but held for both groups. Of male smokers, 84% reported smoking little cigars (either exclusively or in combination with cigarettes), and only 33% smoked cigarettes (either exclusively or in combination with little cigars). The comparable figures among female smokers were 69% for little cigars and 50% for cigarettes.
To explore these findings further, 3 focus groups were conducted in July 2005. Using handbills that briefly described the focus groups, 2 student interns directly recruited participants by approaching students at gathering places on campus and asking them if they currently smoke or formerly smoked little cigars. Those students who answered affirmatively were invited to participate in the focus groups. The only other eligibility criteria were being African American and being enrolled at the university.
The author conducted 2 focus groups and was present for the third, which was facilitated by an intern. The groups lasted 60 to 90 minutes, and participants received a $30 gift certificate for their time. The groups were not segmented in any way; students simply chose the group that was most convenient for them. The author developed a set of focus group questions in consultation with health education students at the university, some of whom had themselves smoked little cigars. Topics included participants' current smoking status, brands of little cigars smoked, frequency of smoking and amount smoked, reasons for smoking little cigars instead of cigarettes, perceived risks relative to cigarettes (in terms of both addiction and disease), intentions to quit, and the social context for smoking little cigars. (Responses to questions about quitting are not reported in this paper.)
Written notes were taken during each group. With participants' permission, the discussions were also tape-recorded, and the recordings were transcribed verbatim. The author reviewed the tapes and analyzed original notes and transcriptions to identify important issues and recurring themes. Given the small number of focus groups conducted, the author coded text of the original notes and transcriptions by hand, highlighting segments of text reflecting identified issues and themes.
The focus group protocol (as well as the earlier survey) was approved by the institutional review board of the university where the research was conducted.
Three focus groups were held, and 21 African American students, 17 male and 4 female, participated. Ages ranged from 19 to 25 years. Of participants, 20 were current smokers of little cigars; one was a former user. Only 6 of the 21 also smoked cigarettes; one other was a former cigarette smoker. Black & Milds (often referred to simply as Blacks) were overwhelmingly the brand of choice for little cigars. In fact, for these students the name
When asked why they preferred little cigars, participants provided various responses.
Two reasons unrelated to cigarettes were also offered for smoking little cigars:
Participants indicated that inhaling was necessary to get a buzz from little cigars, and almost all participants reported doing so. One participant said not inhaling "is a waste of money."
When participants were asked how many little cigars they smoked, their responses ranged from 1 pack (i.e., 5 cigars) per day to 1 pack every 2 weeks. Those participants who also smoked cigarettes indicated that they smoked more cigarettes than little cigars. One student noted that he smoked 3 packs of cigarettes per week but only 1 pack of Blacks per week.
Many participants indicated that they did not smoke an entire little cigar in a single session. Said one, "I will hype me a Black in the morning, smoke a little before I go to class, then go to class and come back out, and I smoke a little bit more. And then I might go home . . . and smoke the rest of the Black."
Other students stressed that they do not smoke a whole little cigar by themselves, referring to the practice of passing a little cigar among friends. A participant stated, "I can't smoke a whole one by myself. . . . Like I said, I got to smoke with one of my boys." Another participant commented, "Collectively we might smoke five to six Blacks in a day." Summing up this discussion, a student commented, "You got to share the Black."
The belief that little cigars are not as addictive as cigarettes was widespread. A participant remarked, "In cigarettes there are more things to get addicted to." Another participant observed, "You see people smoking cigarettes; they be outside in like 10-degree weather, because they need a cigarette. . . . If I want a Black and even if I want it . . . bad, I still won't do anything like [that]." A third participant simply stated, "I could shake a Black, but I couldn't shake cigarettes."
A minority of students disagreed. One declared, "Black & Milds in some cases [are] just as addictive — different gun, same bullet." Another student noted that he had started smoking little cigars to stop smoking cigarettes. He said it worked, but now he felt addicted to little cigars. Even so, he was confident he could stop but said he had not tried: "I don't feel that I smoke enough Blacks in a day for it to be a serious health risk to me."
Participants' opinions were divided regarding the health risks of smoking little cigars compared with the risks of smoking cigarettes; some participants believed little cigars were less harmful than cigarettes. Several students noted that little cigars are not addressed in antismoking messages. One student remarked, "I ain't never heard anything about Black & Milds being bad . . . but you hear everything about cigarettes and how they give you cancer and all." Other students claimed a difference in ingredients: "[There are] more harmful things in cigarettes that are not in Blacks, like more gas, toxic gases, and stuff like that." Still other participants cited a difference in the quantity consumed. One student stated, "I think that it is not as bad, because you don't smoke Black & Milds as much, at least I don't."
Other students expressed the opinion that the risks of cigarettes and little cigars are equivalent. "It's the same thing; tobacco is tobacco," said one student. In a more nuanced observation, another student commented, "Smoking a Black you might get the same disease as that cigarette smoker is going to get later on, but you are going to get it years after them."
Still other participants thought little cigars are more harmful than cigarettes and offered different explanations. Some students suggested that little cigars are a stronger tobacco product. For example, one student remarked, "One Black & Mild is just like smoking 10 cigarettes or something like that."
Several students expressed the opinion that toxic chemicals are concentrated in a paper liner in Black & Milds and that this paper makes little cigars more harmful than cigarettes. They referred to this liner as the "cancer stick." These students believed that the risk of smoking little cigars can be reduced by removing the liner through a process called
Confusion about the purpose of the paper liner was considerable. One participant remarked, "My brother [says the] cancer stick is like the filter. I said, nah, the cancer stick can't be no filter, but I felt like that little stick was putting more harm in my body than good and if I take it out, at least I will be winning a little bit."
Several students expressed interest in learning more about little cigars and their risks. One stated, "I want to find out what is in a Black. I have been smoking this for years, and I am going to find out what is really in it." In one focus group, the facilitator asked if participants would want to read factual information about little cigars. All members of the group agreed they would.
Published research on the use of little cigars by young African Americans is scant. A literature review identified 3 studies (
Among the most disturbing findings in this study are those regarding perceived health risks of little cigars. As in previous studies (
One factor contributing to the potential harm from little cigars is the way they are smoked. In general, smoke from neither cigars nor pipes is directly inhaled. This presumably explains why rates of respiratory diseases are significantly lower among cigar and pipe smokers than among cigarette smokers, although rates are still substantially higher among cigar and pipe smokers than among nonsmokers (
Richter et al (
Some college students in the current study offered logical, if incorrect, explanations for why they believe that little cigars pose fewer health risks than cigarettes (e.g., little cigars are not mentioned in public health antismoking messages, little cigars have fewer chemicals and contain less nicotine than cigarettes). Some students played down the health risks by noting that they smoke fewer little cigars than cigarette smokers smoke cigarettes. Other students seemed to engage in "magical thinking" to justify their use of little cigars. One student reasoned that smoking little cigars must be less harmful than smoking cigarettes, because when he smoked a little cigar, the plastic tip did not turn brown like the filter of a cigarette does. Another student rationalized her use of little cigars by saying her grandmother smoked cigarettes and died of a smoking-related disease.
Devising such creative rationales is easy when there is genuine confusion about risk and when hard facts are unavailable to clear up the confusion. Many participants expressed such uncertainty as well as an interest in learning more about little cigars. However, few antitobacco materials specifically address little cigars. The findings here suggest that African American college students might be more attentive to factual information about little cigars than they are to comparable information about cigarettes, which they are likely to have encountered before and which they may see as irrelevant to their smoking behaviors. The probability that students would pay attention to such information might increase if the information reflected the cultural context in which students consume little cigars. Brown & Williamson has exploited hip-hop culture to market Kool cigarettes to young African Americans (
The focus groups confirmed the finding from earlier studies (
Large recurring studies such as the National Youth Tobacco Survey (
This study was limited to 3 focus groups of 21 college students at one historically black university, and the results may lack external validity. To what extent the focus groups shed light on the use of little cigars by African American young adults who are not in college, by black students at predominantly white colleges, or by college students who are not African American is not clear.
The focus group data were coded without qualitative data analysis software and therefore without the assistance such software provides in categorizing and reviewing qualitative data. However, the small number of participants made it easy to code, organize, and examine data by hand. Only the author analyzed the focus group data, so there was no check on the reliability of interpreting and categorizing text segments. This shortcoming is mitigated by 3 factors. First, the author was very familiar with the data, having been present during all focus groups. Second, the categories of interest were clearly but broadly defined, and the themes that emerged were not difficult to identify. Third, the author made no effort to quantify responses to particular questions beyond general groupings (e.g., a few, many, most). Misinterpretation or misclassification of a few statements should not alter basic conclusions of the analysis.
Focus groups do not comprehensively define or describe an issue, but they provide information in participants' own words that deepen our understanding of the issue. In this study, focus groups were used to identify common habits and beliefs about little cigars that warrant further investigation and attention in the design of programs and materials to encourage tobacco prevention and cessation among African American college students. The results build on the findings of other research on cigar use by adolescents and young adults and extend our understanding of this smoking behavior.
However, given the preliminary nature of this study and its small number of participants, additional research on the use of little cigars by African American college students is needed to confirm and elucidate its findings. If verified, these results have several implications for tobacco control advocates at historically black colleges and universities and possibly at other campuses and other venues where African American young adults can be reached:
Tobacco research targeting this audience should address the use of little cigars. Research on smoking is often limited to cigarettes, and when it does relate to cigars, it rarely considers them separate from full-sized cigars.
Research on tobacco use should make clear distinctions among the various substances and products that can be smoked. If research does not differentiate between marijuana-filled "blunts" and cigars and if it does not specifically ask about little cigars and provide examples of little cigar brands, then tobacco use in this population may be miscalculated (
Tobacco use prevention and cessation programs should address little cigars in materials, curricula, counter-advertising, and services. If tobacco use prevention programs do not plainly distinguish the substances and products that the target audience might use, these programs may confuse rather than enlighten.
Tobacco programs should provide clear information about little cigars. Some little-cigar smokers are honestly confused about the health risks of using little cigars (
Tobacco programs should debunk myths found in this and other ( Little cigars are not addictive. Little cigars are a safe alternative to cigarettes. Hyping reduces the health risk of little cigars.
This study hopefully will help define and promote additional research into the use of little cigars by African American college students and other college-aged African Americans. Research that targets this population and that addresses the use of little cigars in tobacco use prevention and cessation efforts needs to be addressed by the public health community. If it is not, then smoking behaviors that pose significant risks to African American young adults may be overlooked.
This research was supported by grants from the Faculty Senate at North Carolina Central University and the North Carolina Health and Wellness Trust Fund. Many individuals contributed their time, effort, and expertise to this research. Laura Fish assisted in the conception and design of the focus groups. Rosalind Richardson, Audrey Foster, and Anthony Brow helped arrange and conduct the focus groups. Steven Stewart, Robin Swift, and Jean Sam reviewed drafts of the manuscript.
The opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the US Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors’ affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above. URLs for nonfederal organizations are provided solely as a service to our users. URLs do not constitute an endorsement of any organization by CDC or the federal government, and none should be inferred. CDC is not responsible for the content of Web pages found at these URLs.