Smoking is... good?

  • Thread starter Thread starter morgan
  • Start date Start date
MakeEmTalk said:
Also, for those of you using bulk tobacco, if your tobacco gets too dry, throw two chunks of citrus peel about 2" x 2" into your bag. Don't just throw them in & leave them, as they may very well over moisturize if not removed in time. Generally, it takes about two days to moisten a full pound of tobacco. Also, watch for mold on the peel itself, and remove it right away if mold is seen.

You can also use pieces of wet cotton wool wrapped in tinfoil with some holes in it. Or better, if you have an old moistener, you can replace the refill with cotton wool as well. In my experience it's much more effective than typical moistener, and the wool can be replaced each time to avoid the developing of mold. The "moistening power" can be easily regulated by soaking and squeezeing the wool appropriately.
 
For hydrating the tobacco, you can put it in a tupperware jar with a narrow lid and then wet a paper towel and cover it. I only takes a few hours to hydrate about 40g of tobacco. You can check on it and fluff or toss it around to make sure it hydrates evenly every hour or so. Or you can just wet a paper towel and stick it in your tobacco pouch. As said before, don't leave it in too long, because your tobacco may get too wet. You just have to keep an eye on it, and stir it around occasionally.
 
Propaganda alert! More anti-smoking shenanigans.
_http://www.mdanderson.org/newsroom/news-releases/2013/tobaccosmokingmyths.html

Tobacco Myths Persist 50 Years After the US Surgeon General First Warned Americans of the Dangers of Smoking


MD Anderson experts debunk myths, share new facts and resources to address this persistent health issue

MD Anderson News Release 11/07/13

Tobacco misconceptions prevail in the United States despite the dramatic drop in smoking rates since the release of the first Surgeon General’s Report on smoking and health in January 1964. Experts at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center dispel common myths and share new educational resources to address this persistent challenge.

“Since 1964, smoking rates have dropped by more than half as a result of successful education, legislative and smoking cessation efforts,” said Lewis Foxhall, M.D., vice president for health policy at MD Anderson.

“Still, lung cancer remains the number one cancer killer and the leading preventable cause of death in the United States.”

smoking tobacco

With the approaching 50th anniversary of the Surgeon General’s Report, Foxhall and other MD Anderson experts urge the public to take a proactive stance against this pervasive health issue by gaining insight on current tobacco issues including information that disproves the following myths.

Tobacco Myth #1: Almost no one smokes any more.
Fact: About 43.8 million people still smoke. That’s almost one in five people in the United States.

“The current percentage of smokers is 19%. That’s significantly lower than the 42% in 1965,” Foxhall said. “However, the actual number of people smoking today is close to the same.”

About 50 million people smoked in 1965. “Because our population is much larger, it just seems like we have a lot fewer smokers,” Foxhall explained.

“We have a lot of work ahead to prevent new smokers and help existing smokers quit,” said Ellen R. Gritz, Ph.D., professor and chair of behavioral science at MD Anderson.

“Thanks to programs like the American Legacy Foundation’s truth national anti-smoking campaign, we have been able to achieve fewer youths smoking,” Gritz said, a previous vice chair on the Legacy board. “But funding for these campaigns is limited and unable to compete with the exorbitant and seemingly unlimited advertising dollars spent by tobacco companies.”

smoking lung cancer

Tobacco Myth #2: e-Cigarettes, cigars and hookahs are safe alternatives.
Fact: All tobacco products, including e-cigarettes and hookahs, have nicotine. And it’s nicotine’s highly addictive properties that make these products harmful.

In 2008, the five largest cigarette companies spent $9.94 billion dollars on advertising and marketing products like e-cigarettes, flavored cigars, cigarillos and hookahs.

“The tobacco industry comes up with these new products to recruit new, younger smokers,” said Alexander Prokhorov, M.D., Ph.D., director of the Tobacco Outreach Education Program at MD Anderson. “And, they advertise them as less harmful than conventional cigarettes. But once a young person gets acquainted with nicotine, it’s more likely he or she will try other tobacco products.”

“While e-cigarettes may contain less harmful substances than combustible tobacco, they’re presently unregulated so quality control over the nicotine content and other components is left to the manufacturer,” said Paul Cinciripini, Ph.D., professor and deputy chair of behavioral science and director of the Tobacco Treatment Program at MD Anderson.

“At this time, it’s far too early to tell whether or not e-cigarettes can be used effectively as a smoking cessation device,” Cinciripini said.

Tobacco Myth #3: Infrequent, social smoking is harmless.
Fact: Any smoking, even social smoking, is dangerous.

“Science has not identified a safe level of smoking, and even a few cigarettes here and there can maintain addiction,” said David Wetter, Ph.D., chair of health disparities research at MD Anderson. “If you are a former smoker, data suggests that having just a single puff can send you back to smoking.”

Tobacco Myth #4: Smoking outside eliminates the dangers of secondhand smoke
Fact: There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Even brief secondhand smoke exposure can cause harm.

Exposure to secondhand smoke at home or work increases a person’s risk of heart disease by 25 to 30% and lung cancer by 20 to 30%. That’s because the amount of cancer-causing chemicals is higher in secondhand smoke than in the smoke inhaled by smokers.

Families that prohibit smoking in and around the home are on the right path, said Wetter.

Stay informed and take action

“Being educated and sharing this knowledge with others are ways to action,” said Ernest Hawk, M.D., vice president of cancer prevention and population sciences at MD Anderson. “For smokers, it’s never too late to quit smoking and reap health benefits.”

As part of MD Anderson’s Moon Shot program to end cancer, Hawk and other experts have developed a comprehensive plan that addresses the burden of tobacco use in institutions, communities, states and nations.

“The End Tobacco plan recommends more than 100 actions in the areas of policy, education and community-based services that MD Anderson can lead to end tobacco at the institutional, local, regional, state national and international levels,” Hawk said. “As a leader in the field of tobacco research, it’s vital we take a leadership role to confront the use of tobacco in any form.”

More than 200,000 people are diagnosed with lung cancer each year in the United States and about 150,000 people die as a result of this disease. Smoking contributes to almost 90% of lung cancer deaths and 30% of all cancer deaths.
 
H-kqge said:
Propaganda alert! More anti-smoking shenanigans.

Among the best ways to counteract the anti-smoking propaganda (and propaganda in general) is to light up. :cool2: On that thought, I'm lighting up! :cool2: :D
 
“Since 1964, smoking rates have dropped by more than half as a result of successful education, legislative and smoking cessation efforts,” said Lewis Foxhall, M.D., vice president for health policy at MD Anderson.

“Still, lung cancer remains the number one cancer killer and the leading preventable cause of death in the United States.”

This is so manipulative. They can't offer any evidence for a connection between lung cancer and smoking, because there isn't any. Any evidence they find is based on deeply flawed studies, designed to give them the result they wanted before the study started. In articles like this, all they can do is juxtapose an emotionally loaded statement, with another rather questionable statement. I suppose one could say that their 'education' has been successful, but it's based on falsehoods - successful only in the sense that many people now believe a lie.

I'm lighting up, and then I think I'll light up again! :cool2: :cool2: :cool2:
 
Now there is this :

http://journals.lww.com/plasreconsurg/Fulltext/2013/11000/Facial_Changes_Caused_by_Smoking___A_Comparison.10.aspx

About a study conducted to identify the specific components of facial aging secondary to smoking, by comparing standardized photographs of identical twins with different smoking histories.
This study details the specifics of facial aging brought on by smoking, which primarily affects the middle and lower thirds of the face. It also demonstrates that a 5-year difference in smoking history can cause noticeable differences in facial aging in twins.

Well, I have no twin I know of, but wearing sunglasses might be a good way to hide smoky wrinkles and kind of save my face from their inherent shame :cool2:
 
Endymion said:
“Since 1964, smoking rates have dropped by more than half as a result of successful education, legislative and smoking cessation efforts,” said Lewis Foxhall, M.D., vice president for health policy at MD Anderson.

“Still, lung cancer remains the number one cancer killer and the leading preventable cause of death in the United States.”

This is so manipulative. They can't offer any evidence for a connection between lung cancer and smoking, because there isn't any. Any evidence they find is based on deeply flawed studies, designed to give them the result they wanted before the study started. In articles like this, all they can do is juxtapose an emotionally loaded statement, with another rather questionable statement. I suppose one could say that their 'education' has been successful, but it's based on falsehoods - successful only in the sense that many people now believe a lie.

I'm lighting up, and then I think I'll light up again! :cool2: :cool2: :cool2:

For over 40 years, they've been unsuccessfully trying to induce lung cancer in mammals in the laboratory - and by a forced smoking setup, something completely different than how people smoke. "First-hand, second-hand, third-hand" smoke, it's all the same nonsense. And when the anti-smoking campaign really ramped up all those years ago, there were honest scientists and doctors that spoke out about the lies and lack of any credible evidence about the outrageous claims, just like when the anti-fat and cholesterol myths were first being ramped up, and now the REAL evidence is quite clear what effect the anti-fat and cholesterol campaign has had on health.
 
That’s because the amount of cancer-causing chemicals is higher in secondhand smoke than in the smoke inhaled by smokers.

Trying to figure out the above will give me something to do as I count down the time to when the tobacco shop opens. I just ran out of smokes! :P
 
Odyssey said:
That’s because the amount of cancer-causing chemicals is higher in secondhand smoke than in the smoke inhaled by smokers.

Trying to figure out the above will give me something to do as I count down the time to when the tobacco shop opens. I just ran out of smokes! :P

It's astonishing how many people actually buy this virally promulgated blatant absurd, just because "everyone knows how fatal the tobacco smoke is". If there are more toxins in the second hand smoke than in what is directly inhaled, it may only mean that human body produces these very chemicals. Why the organism should by itself produce chemicals that cause cancer, heart failure, early aging and of course global warming? Or perhaps the ultimate point is that smokers are not really human, that their genes went awry essentially making them mutants? It won't surprise me if i see such line of "reasoning" expressed openly in coming years.
 
goyacobol said:
I have also been looking for other organic options and ran across a new small company trying to introduce some competition for American Spirit. Due to FDA regulations and red tape for new tobacco product licensing they had to be creative and finally create the product as a cigarillo which makes it easer to get on the market. They had to increase the weight of the cigarillo and use tobacco and flax instead of paper wrapping. I had ordered a 2 pack minimum size order before noticing the AS menthol change.

The test order has not arrived yet. The shipping is expensive ($6) for just 2 packs. If I like them I would order a carton at a time since the shipping is less by the carton ($11.50). Even with the pricy shipping the price per pack for a carton would be about $6 which is less than I am paying for the American Spirit organics locally.

You can see the details for the Hestia Tobacco Company at _http://hestiatobacco.com/ which is at least a new small independent company offering an organic tobacco. This not a sales pitch since I haven't tried them yet.

Reading this topic is like "thinking with a hammer" for me. I am just trying to find that better tobacco solution and all of the comments here really help.

Thanks,

goyacobol :cool2:

After receiving the Hestia "cigarillos" I have to say that they are very smooth and mild but still taste like cigarillos which are more like small cigars in flavor. I have since purchased a Top-O-Matic injector machine and will probably try to find a better blend of organic tobacco than American Spirit since I find them a little on the harsh side.

I just wanted to follow up on the previous remarks so everyone knows they are not cigarettes but are cigarillos even though they are fairly smooth to smoke.
And they are not "organic" as I previously thought either.

goyacobol :cool2:
 
Endymion said:
“Since 1964, smoking rates have dropped by more than half as a result of successful education, legislative and smoking cessation efforts,” said Lewis Foxhall, M.D., vice president for health policy at MD Anderson.

“Still, lung cancer remains the number one cancer killer and the leading preventable cause of death in the United States.”

This is so manipulative. They can't offer any evidence for a connection between lung cancer and smoking, because there isn't any. Any evidence they find is based on deeply flawed studies, designed to give them the result they wanted before the study started. In articles like this, all they can do is juxtapose an emotionally loaded statement, with another rather questionable statement. I suppose one could say that their 'education' has been successful, but it's based on falsehoods - successful only in the sense that many people now believe a lie.

It was indeed rather a difficult propagandized smoking article to read. Nevertheless, just in case some have not read this, SoTT carried article written by, Michael McFadden, called 'Recognising Anti-Smoking Types' , you may recognize some aspects in people you know. And, if thinking about a military career; not that you are, they are on to you, too, if you smoke, as this article describes; 'Smokers make poorer military slaves' , as their studies show, they really don't like your kind. From 'Sign of the Times' there is this detailed overview on smoking issues called 'Aliens Don't Like to Eat People That Smoke!'. For new readers, if you search SoTT, you will find excellent articles on the subject, both the medical benefits of smoking along with reams of propaganda that has been countered. Finely, and written by a non-smoker, this recent article comes to mind - 'The myth of smoking during pregnancy being harmful', dealing with the smoking science studied by the insurance industry and then buried as inconvenient truths.

I'm lighting up, and then I think I'll light up again! :cool2: :cool2: :cool2:

I'll join you! :cool2:
 
I'm reading a great book that dissects all the main anti-smoking studies: Smoke Screens: The Truth About a Tobacco by Richard White. Highly recommended. Much poor study design and lots of outright scientific fraud.
 
Mr. Premise said:
I'm reading a great book that dissects all the main anti-smoking studies: Smoke Screens: The Truth About a Tobacco by Richard White. Highly recommended. Much poor study design and lots of outright scientific fraud.

Interesting.

_http://www.amazon.com/Smoke-Screens-Truth-About-Tobacco/dp/1409246701

This is a comprehensive book that analyses the scientific evidence linking tobacco smoking to disease and premature death, as well as the political motivations that have led to the anti-smoking movement becoming so large. The book explores all aspects of tobacco smoking, including: smoking trends among social classes; detection bias and its impact on diagnosis; and examines in depth the evidence linking smoking to specific diseases; how attitudes towards smoking have changed over time from being used medicinally to being the scourge of society; and how and why tobacco smoking has the negative status it does today.It objectively dissects the politics and science of smoking trends and issues, looking at vital, complex components that are often overlooked. A must-read for smokers and non-smokers alike, Smoke Screens: The Truth About Tobacco is a controversial work that challenges one of the most widely accepted beliefs of our time.
 
Mr. Premise said:
I'm reading a great book that dissects all the main anti-smoking studies: Smoke Screens: The Truth About a Tobacco by Richard White. Highly recommended. Much poor study design and lots of outright scientific fraud.

Just downloaded the book and looking forward to reading it. Thank you for the info Mr. Premise.
 

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom