Smoking is... good?

M

morgan

Guest
#1
ADMIN NOTE: This is a consolidated thread. All minor threads on smoking, tobacco, nicotine, etc, are merged here.


I smoke, and have no plans to give it up. But, I am glad I didn't start smoking this young!
 

rs

Jedi Council Member
#4
I know the C's were asked about Nicotine and Alcohol

http://www.google.com

In the search bar:

lsd site:cassiopaea.com
 

anart

The Living Force
#5
I know the C's were asked about Nicotine and Alcohol

and THC? Not that I would ever do anything illegal, of course, but, uhhm, a friend of mine would like to know. Yeah, a freaky friend of mine. ~looks around to make sure no one is watching~
 

Beau

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
#6
I know the C's were asked about Nicotine and Alcohol

John Chang said:
Did anyone ever ask them about any other mind-altering substances? Like LSD or THC? And if so, what were their opinions?
Here are a few for you to consider:

January 14, 1995

Q: (L) Is this, now you guys just calm down when I ask this
question... (F) I know what you are going to ask... (L) No
remarks, okay? Many years ago when I was a child of the
60's and 70's, I tried some LSD. (T) I know exactly what you
are going to ask, yeah, because I've seen it too! (J) Yes. (L)
In a major way! Geometric patterns and colors manifested
with music. (T) Yes! (L) Is this what we are talking about
here?
A: Bingo!
Q: (L) So, in other words...
A: The answer to your next question is yes, you experienced
a bleedthrough of 4th density.
Q: (F) In other words an acid trip is like a glimpse into 4th
density. (L) Do you recommend this method for accessing this
type of reality?
A: Open.
Q: (T) Well, the problem is that some people would want to
do that all the time and not work on doing it in a natural way.
A: Yes.
Q: (T) And other people would use it and abuse it and use it
as an excuse. (J) And damage themselves. (L) Yes, it is
obviously something that has to be very carefully handled. We
can't encourage this. (J) Is that like the concept of adding
additional dimensions to the 3 we normally experience?
A: Yes. 4th level density implies and additional dimension of
experience doesn't it?


October 23, 1999

Q: I want to you have lost a fan because he was not happy
with what he considered to be "internal inconsistencies" in that
you were NOT favorably disposed toward hallucinations
produced by substances such as Mescaline and Ayahuasca,
but yet you recommend Melatonin because it is a
hallucinogen. Then, you said that spiritual powers could not
be obtained through chemicals or plant type means, but then
said that Melatonin exercises psychic abilities. Could you
comment on this?
A: Several comments: First of all, "fan" is short for "fanatic."
Secondly, melatonin does not force an alteration in
physiological brain chemicals, as do mescaline, peyote, LSD,
etc. Accessing the higher levels of psychical awareness
through such processes is harmful to the balance levels of the
prime chakra. This is because it alters the natural rhythms of
psychic development by causing reliance on the part of the
subject, thus subjugating the learning process. It is a form of
self-imposed abridging of free will. Melatonin simply allows
the system to clear obstructions in the brain chemistry
naturally, thereby allowing the subject to continue to learn at a
natural pace. And, it is by no means unimportant that
melatonin is a natural body hormone. The other substances
mentioned are, at least in part, synthetic, with the exception of
peyote. But even that is not a natural ingredient of the human
physiological being. And besides, we have already discussed
the importance, or lack thereof, of those who pass judgment
upon this exercise, or communication.

October 28, 1994

Q: (V) Can Reiki clear marijuana residue from the lungs?
A: Partly but what if there are continuous infusions?
Q: (L) Is there ever a case when ingestion of pot or alcohol
are beneficial in a spiritual way?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) V*** used pot within past two weeks, why?
A: Search within.
Q: (L) Was it an outside influence?
A: All uncomfortable events are influenced either directly or
indirectly.
Q: (L) Was this the passing of her uncle?
A: Search within.
Q: (L) Many years ago I was with a friend and we pulled off
the road to let me drive. We both walked around the car and
got in and I believe we sat there for a very long time. Was
that because of the potency of what she had smoked or
what?
A: You were abducted due to the open state produced by the
drug.
Q: (L) What was in that stuff?
A: Strychnine.
Q: (L) Have I done great physical damage to my body
through drugs?
A: Some.
Q: (L) Is it irreversible?
A: Not likely.
Q: (L) If I went on a fast would I be able to reverse the
damage to my body?
A: Good chance.
 
#7
I know the C's were asked about Nicotine and Alcohol

In summary - not recommended. I didn't know that melatonin was safe. I will have to try some, then.
 

Justin

Jedi Master
FOTCM Member
#8
I know the C's were asked about Nicotine and Alcohol

What did the C's say about about Nicotine and Alcohol?

I was happy to hear what they said about the melatonin :)
 
B

birdman

Guest
#9
I know the C's were asked about Nicotine and Alcohol

thc, in my experience, moves fine energies to the intellectual and instinctive centres and away from the emotional and moving centres. effect on the creative impulse was neutral.

upsides - perceptions were more vivid. thinking used more of available knowledge base and was more discerning. downsides - emotions and movement were most likely to be experienced intellectually and instinctively. true emotional drive was dampened, i tended to recede into my mind, interaction with outer world was reduced.

for me, the substance was useful for putting together the pieces, so to speak, and for conceiving of what would be appropriate to do, but was ultimately unproductive in that it lead to no real doing, and in certain ways, prevented it.

there is a tendency among those who wish to see differently to dabble, and i cannot recommend one way or the other as it is a personal choice. although i know the positive effects are attainable without chemical assistance. whats more, in light of the mouravieff material, depriving the emotional centre of its proper energy would seem to have serious negative consequences in terms of esoteric development.

this is my experience, for your perusal. and, as always, its subject and open to change.
 

Alada

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
#10
I know the C's were asked about Nicotine and Alcohol

Justin said:
What did the C's say about about Nicotine and Alcohol?
There's some information and some quotes from the C's on nicotine here:
Aliens Don't Like to Eat People That Smoke!
The Cassiopaeans Answer Diet and Health Related Questions

Smoking hand rolled cigarettes with a pure, additive-free tobacco like "American Spirit" seems preferable. I enjoy that brand mixed with a little regular tobacco as American Spirit can be a bit dry sometimes.
 
A

alchemy

Guest
#11
In what is perhaps yet another indication that certain senior political leaders know more than they are letting on regarding the fate awaiting the rest of the world, Congress has exempted itself from the citywide DC smoking ban recently enacted:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/weekinreview/12kornblut.html?pagewanted=print

February 12, 2006
The Nation
All (Puff) in Favor (Puff) Say Aye (Wheeze)
By ANNE E. KORNBLUT
WASHINGTON

WHEN the citywide smoking ban takes effect here next month, at least one workplace in town will be spared: Congress, the beneficiary of a kind of diplomatic immunity for federal lawmakers.

That is excellent news for John A. Boehner of Ohio, the new Republican majority leader, who regularly smokes cigarettes between votes in the House. And for Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat, who sits and smokes cigars while reading the newspaper in the speaker's lobby. And for Sherwood Boehlert, the New York Republican, who is struggling to quit but can be seen inhaling in weaker moments during the workday.

Because while the rest of the country has turned against smoking with great zeal, Congress has stubbornly — some would say proudly — refused to bend. Smoking is still allowed in numerous indoor spaces in the Capitol, most noticeably in the gilded reception area where lawmakers crowd together during the long yeas and nays. Standing ashtrays, usually partly filled with cigar and cigarette butts, are strategically placed in the corridors. In a time when the "smoke-filled room" is more metaphor than fixture, its literal incarnation in Congress can seem almost quaint.

Members are uncharacteristically shy about discussing their smoking habits in a public domain where smoking is supposedly taboo. Not one smoker-lawmaker contacted for this article returned the call. Photographs of lawmakers smoking are virtually impossible to come by (as the blog Wonkette discovered last week when it put out a public call for photographs of Mr. Boehner smoking).

Yet in private, some lawmakers have shown little desire to tamp down the addiction. In some corners, the right to smoke in Congress is seen as a last stand against political correctness, a bulwark against the antismoking fervor that swept the political universe during the Clinton years. (The Clintons famously banned smoking from the White House, reportedly to the annoyance of smokers from the other party who had to attend long meetings there.)

"What will happen is someone will come along and ruin this last bit of fun," said Christopher Buckley, whose satiric novel, "Thank You for Smoking," has been made into a movie.

"As sure as night will follow day, now some aging senator or Congressional page will come down with lung cancer and sue the United States government because of this very room," Mr. Buckley said. "And that last bit of fun will be foreclosed."

Except it's not the last, as it turns out. Against a tide of frantic smoking-ban legislation from coast to coast, the industry has fought to keep smoking permissible everywhere, succeeding mostly in casinos and airport lounges, particularly in the South, and the like. Gambling interests even have their own smoking lobby, and some of the airport lounges were paid for by Philip Morris. Some factory assembly lines, including those at General Motors, allow workers to smoke on the job, partly because of old agreements with labor unions that wanted to keep workers comfortable. Newer union agreements have focused on worker health, and are beginning to phase smoking out.

And even in states that ban smoking altogether in public places, there have been tobacco tussles around statehouses, which are mostly subject to the lawmakers and not the laws. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California put up a tent outside the smokefree capitol in Sacramento so he could conduct business over cigars.

In Mr. Buckley's novel, the protagonist is a publicist for the tobacco industry who nicknames friends in the alcohol and firearms industries merchants of death. Antismoking advocates are all too willing to attribute the tobacco zone in Washington to similarly sinister forces, arguing that the Republican leadership is in the pocket of tobacco behemoths.

Cigarette companies, after all, have poured more than $55 million into campaigns over the last 15 or so years. Representative Tom DeLay, Republican of Texas and the former majority leader, borrowed the corporate planes of R.J. Reynolds at least nine times in the last seven years. One of Mr. Boehner's most famous acts — handing out checks to lawmaker colleagues on the House floor in 1995 — involved donations from tobacco lobbyists.

But if the tobacco lobby was at work in keeping Congress a nicotine refuge, it probably could have saved itself the trouble. A confluence of more potent cultural and demographic forces seems to be at play on Capitol Hill, with lawmakers indulging in a familiar hubris.

"Congress generally has rules for us and rules for them, and the rules for them are very often more pleasant than the rules for us," Mr. Buckley said.

"They exist on their own island," said Vincent Morris, a spokesman for the district's mayor, Anthony A. Williams, who declined to veto the new city council ban on smoking in restaurants and bars. "We would not be able to enforce the smoking ban in the speaker's lobby," Mr. Morris said, referring to the reception area. The Congress, he said, "is kind of old school in that sense."

Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, a nonsmoker who has written letters urging the House leadership to revise the internal rules, said, "I think some Republicans in the leadership smoke and feel they have a right to smoke wherever they want to smoke."

"If I want to sit in the speaker's lobby outside the House chambers I have to breathe in tobacco smoke, from cigarettes and cigars," Mr. Waxman said. "And it's sometimes unbearable."

But Washington's antismoking advocates seem resigned. "We recognize Congress does what it wants and has always done what it wants," said Angela Bradbery, a founder of Smokefree DC. "We don't have the capacity to do anything about it. And we're not going to try to get them to change their ways."
Cheers,

John
 

Justin

Jedi Master
FOTCM Member
#12
I know the C's were asked about Nicotine and Alcohol

Graham said:
Justin said:
What did the C's say about about Nicotine and Alcohol?
There's some information and some quotes from the C's on nicotine here:
Aliens Don't Like to Eat People That Smoke!
The Cassiopaeans Answer Diet and Health Related Questions

Smoking hand rolled cigarettes with a pure, additive-free tobacco like "American Spirit" seems preferable. I enjoy that brand mixed with a little regular tobacco as American Spirit can be a bit dry sometimes.
Thanks Graham! That is exactly the sort of information I was looking for :)
 

Ryan

Dagobah Resident
#13
Smoking banned in DC, but not in Congress

"Congress generally has rules for us and rules for them, and the rules for them are very often more pleasant than the rules for us," Mr. Buckley said.
Indeed - seems like this phrase sums up the entire article quite well.
 
#14
Smoking banned in DC, but not in Congress

Hi all:
Reading the above article reminded me of the book Animal Farm by George Orwell. I am sure many of you are familiar with this book so I won’t go into details explaining it, but in short for those who have not read it or heard of it… it is a book about some animals at a farm that rebel against the human owners and take over. The pigs are the so called leaders of the animals, and after they kick out the humans they produce a set of rules as guidelines for the animals to follow, but the rules change as time goes by…

THE (ORIGINAL) SEVEN COMMANDMENTS
1. Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
2. Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
3. No animal shall wear clothes.
4. No animal shall sleep in a bed.
5. No animal shall drink alcohol.
6. No animal shall kill any other animal.
7. All animals are equal.

The commandments become altered by the pigs for their benefit. I only remember some, which are…
No animal shall sleep in a bed [with sheets]
No animal shall drink alcohol [to exess]
No animal shall kill any other animal [without cause]

And the commandments become so altered that finally there is nothing left but,
"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others."

The above article clearly states that some people are more equal than others.
cheers,
Nina
 
A

alchemy

Guest
#15
Smoking prevalence among US & International adults

I was curious as to just how effective the drive to 'stamp-out' smoking has been over the years. From the CDC, we find this:


Center for Disease Control said:
Smoking Prevalence Among U.S. Adults
November 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to the article, "Cigarette Smoking Among Adults — United States, 2004," released on Friday, November 11, 2005, in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, approximately 20.9 percent (44.5 million) of adults in the United States are current smokers, down from 22.5 percent in 2002 and 24.1 percent in 1998. In 2004, an estimated 45.6 million adults were former smokers, representing 50.6 percent of those who had ever smoked.
The full chart is here:

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/research_data/adults_prev/prevali.htm

Basically, if you review the historical data you can quickly see that the smoking prevalence rate has been more or less cut in half in the US since 1965.

If we compare the above against the rest of the world, we find this chart from the World Health Organization:

http://www.who.int/tobacco/en/atlas5.pdf

Note the lowest Western, industrialized countries for smoking prevalence (those at 20% male adult smokers, or less):

US
Canada
UK
Australia
Sweden
Finland

With the exception of Sweden & Finland, it sure looks at lot like the core members of the "coalition of the willing". I am not naive enough to suggest it is simply a coincidence...

The rates for women and children can be found at this link; the information is extensive so I won't quote from the site.

http://www.who.int/tobacco/statistics/tobacco_atlas/en/

In general, it seems safe to say that the anti-smoking campaigns ARE being successful.

Why? Consistent and relentless media attacks on both smokers, and 2nd hand smoke, would seem to be a reasonable answer.

Cheers,

John
 
Top Bottom