Short answer: YES, there are some cigarettes more dangerous than others. Long answer: Nicotine and tar levels (among other chemicals) vary from one cigarette brand to another. Of course the more chemicals the worst. It's obvious that smoking non-filtered cigarettes is also worse for you. Nevertheless, all kinds of cigarettes are bad for your health. Even cigar or pipe smoking, in which you are not suppose to inhale can generate throat or mouth cancer.

Yes, Clove cigarettes are particularly bad - According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), clove cigarettes produce at least twice as much nicotine, tar, and carbon monoxide as regular American cigarettes brands.

'lite' or 'mild' cigarettes have been found to be just as harmful as other cigarettes. Nicotine is powerfully addictive and the smoker's brain seeks to ensure a desired level of nicotine is maintained in the blood. Smokers consequently adapt their smoking behaviour to ensure they inhale enough smoke to achieve a satisfactory nicotine 'hit'. When a smoker cuts down the number of cigarettes they smoke, or uses light cigarettes, they're likely to 'compensate' by taking more or deeper puffs, smoking the cigarette further down to the butt, smoking more cigarettes, holding the smoke in their lungs for a longer time, or by unwittingly blocking ventilation holes in the filter of light cigarettes with fingers, saliva or lips having experienced greater 'satisfaction' when doing so. By increasing their intake of nicotine, smokers also take in more tar. (http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/public-health/health-promotion/tobacco/facts/factsheets/light_cigarettes.html)

I suspect that cigarettes containing additives or chemicals are much more dangerous than pure tobacco. Something to note: Often smokers can be affected by "attached toxins" to the smoke...often coming from chemicals on the fingertips. This can even be true for non-smokers --where there are toxins such as perfumes (a plastic-forming substance is what is in most perfumes). An example: A blood test was taken of a group of police officers. The smokers had significant amounts of lead in their system. It was found that when they were handling the lead bullets as on the gun range and also smoking, the toxins from their fingers were being inhaled as part of the smoking process. However, herbicides and fertilizers contain many hazardous ingredients. (Many herbicides are shades of grey away from Agent Orange in chemical composition.) Others emphatically effect the nervous system. So, it could be anyone's guess on what type of residues are contained in tobacco. An incredible amount of synthetic chemicals are used in farming techniques now. Also, the processing or solvents used when making tobacco products could be a factor. Unfortunately, there is not really a list of ingredients or farming methods or processing procedures on these products. Certain chemicals or metals when heated or burned are altered in their stability and there is no telling how they "join up" with other materials. Many chemical reactions occur when substances are heated. Inhaling pure tobacco smoke would be much different than inhaling tobacco smoke along chemical and metallic fumes. Pure tobacco smoke originally was thought of as a cure for some ailments and was considered medicinal. Ha! You don't see too many organic, all-natural cigarettes in the marketplace. "Winston" touts itself as additive free, (but not chemical-free as one would find in organic products). The outdoor BBQ grill. It is a bit of irony to note how many volatile chemical additives are soaked into popular brands of charcoal which transfer to the foods and is inhaled while a person cooks on the outdoor grill. Inhaling and digesting these toxic chemical fumes and smoke is considered acceptable, but a cigarette smoker nearby could be marked as the pariah. Something ludricrous is the fact that there are all kinds of perfumed and scented and fragranced products out there. Soaps, cosmetics, so-called air fresheners, fabric softeners, mail and advertisements, dry cleaning, detergents, cleaners, etc. It does not take a rocket scientist to really look at how these fragrances can damage a person's health. It takes some very volatile chemicals and solvents in order to emit particles into the air designed to be inhaled. Some scents are almost impossible to remove from one's hands or fabrics if touched. Many people are affected immediately with headaches or nausea by these "car fresheners" or bathroom fragrance emissions. Some fragrances are faster acting as an insecticide than Raid. For any sardonic skeptics, I invite you to take a tiny lick of one of these fragranced crystals and notice how you will find yourself more easily agitated and your body feeling less vibrant following the poisoning. These toxic residues can build up in the body and cause all kinds of havoc. How absurd it is to have non-smoking areas of buildings which yet are inundated with toxic chemical fumes from fumes. These fumes probably are even more hazardous to one's health. There is a statement of our society here and how its attention has been manipulated or distracted or put on a narrow focus. The public's attention over the past decade or two has been drawn towards harmful effects of tobacco but not drawn towards the toxic effects of so many other products. ...it makes one question who influences this focus of public attention...and with what motives? Why is the "evil" tobacco industry being targeted with so much fervor and strain, but products containing or emitting arsenic and other severely toxic chemicals are relatively in the shadows...? There is something nutty about this. It is as if relative importances are not distinguished. The tobacco industry is popularized as the health terrorist; while many other industries slowly poison our foods or household air... ...and they dramatically assist with increasing the number of patients for medical care. It is an absurd looniness to neglect a whole army of health hazards, but incredibly strain to squash one particular product. I suspect that there is something underlying this oddity.

Yes. The government requires cigarette companies to post ingredients, tar and nicotine levels of their cigarette brands on the internet. (http://www.philipmorrisusa.com/) Ingredients and levels of tar and nicotine very greatly from cigarettte to cigarette. Generally, you can tell how strong a cigarette is by the color of the filter covering, white, brown, etc.

If you're going to smoke -- like I do -- then I strongly suggest using an extra filter. You can practically buy them for peanuts on Ebay and you'll feel slight relief knowing you're doing something, not as bad. Of course, it's still bad. But, if you won't smoke or if you're not ready, buy an extra filter on ebay. I'm always glad to see all the tar and gunk and shit the inside of the filter blocks from my lungs. Of course smokings wrong, but if you're going to smoke, you might as well be discreet.

I think that's like asking "are some guns more dangerous than others?" I suppose some are more or less so, but they all have the potential to kill.

Yes, burning cigarettes are much more dangerous than unlit cigarettes.