Smoking is... good?

[adrenalexpire]

Hello everyone, interesting topic we have here...

Forgive me for not reading through the entire thread, but I have read through some of it and have a few questions:

1) So far, the only branded organic RYO tobacco I've been able to find is Manitou and American Spirit. Is this correct? Are there other brands I have perhaps overlooked? I know that Kentucky Select (http://organic-smoke.com) used to offer an organic variety but it seems that they have stopped (impossible to get in Australia anyways). Also, I can find very little information on the company that produces Manitou, has anyone been able to find more information on this? I have also found 2 varieties of organic cigars (though Verdadero states that only the filler is organic):

http://www.famous-smoke.com/brand/plasencia+reserva+organica+cigars
http://www.cigar.com/cigars/viewcigar.asp?brand=670

2) What are the opinions of e-cigarettes on here? Most of what I have come across has been very poorly marketed and poorly made. I realise the focus is mainly on tobacco and the disinformation associated with it but for those that simply enjoy the act of smoking/vaping (like myself), I was curious as to what others thought about this. I've been able to find find a few brands that offer organic flavours/fluids/liquids/etc:

http://www.virginvapor.com
http://www.ippukuecigs.com (these are the best quality e-cigarettes I have found, someone please advise if they have found something better)
http://www.electroniccigarettelife.com.au/product-category/e-liquid/papillon-organic

3) As for papers/filters, the best I have found are RAW, though I find it difficult to roll with the organic papers (I'm not sure which rolling machine would be suitable for these?). RAW also offer cotton filters which are lovely to use:

http://rawthentic.com/accessories/filters/?age-verified=1934004487

I am also interested about filtered cigarette holders, though again it is difficult to find any information or data on how the filtering system works in these. This site offers the best that I could find:

http://www.theladysmokes.com/FilteredCigaretteHolders.html

4) The reason I go to all this trouble is because I don't have the facilities to grow my own tobacco, which would naturally be a much better option, but also because I don't think it is naive for someone to desire a relatively pure product..? Anyways, apologies again if any of this has already been posted in the thread.

 

[nicklebleu]

adrenalexpire,

I used to buy Kentucky Select organic, but as you have mentioned, it is (currently?) unavailable. Manitou and American Spirit are hard to get in Australia. I mostly import Kentucky Select Gold (non-organic) from the US via an intermediary shipping company. Although not organic, it is the best I can do at this stage. I have tried other European brands (Wellauer no 2), which i quite like, but I was unable to get much info on origin and manufacture. Whether organic is much better versus inorganic is contentious - my hunch is, that it might contain less Polonium-210, which would be a good thing.

As to eCigarettes - for me this is a no-go. I can't give you much scientific reasoning behind that, but one thing for me is obvious - if the PTB is pushing it, it can't be good. Smoking is much more than mere nicotine administration - as any smoker who stopped and went on nicotine pills or skin patches will be able to tell you. It's unfullfilling. For instance cigarette smoke contains a potent MAO inhibitor (which is a known antidepressant).

I tried cigarette holders, but mainly found it to be messy - they gum up with tar and are difficult to clean. They change the taste of the cigarette quite considerably - in short, I don't bother anymore.

Paperwise I use either hemp paper or unbleached normal paper.

This is the best I can do at this stage, if Kentucky organic will be available again, I'll order a whole container full ...

 

[ScottD]

From the scant information I have been able to find, Kentucky Select will no longer offer the Organic but they do offer a Natural. I don't know if they just gave up trying to maintain the organic labeling or not. I know it can be quite expensive. I've been using the Natural so far and it's been similar in smoke (light and smooth) but it does seem to have a lot of extra plant particles/stems. I try to sift through when using the injector but often you get a funny smell in your smoke and it aint tobacco. I still think this is better than most of the other additive free tobaccos out there.

 

[adrenalexpire]

adrenalexpire,

I used to buy Kentucky Select organic, but as you have mentioned, it is (currently?) unavailable. Manitou and American Spirit are hard to get in Australia. I mostly import Kentucky Select Gold (non-organic) from the US via an intermediary shipping company. Although not organic, it is the best I can do at this stage. I have tried other European brands (Wellauer no 2), which i quite like, but I was unable to get much info on origin and manufacture. Whether organic is much better versus inorganic is contentious - my hunch is, that it might contain less Polonium-210, which would be a good thing.

As to eCigarettes - for me this is a no-go. I can't give you much scientific reasoning behind that, but one thing for me is obvious - if the PTB is pushing it, it can't be good. Smoking is much more than mere nicotine administration - as any smoker who stopped and went on nicotine pills or skin patches will be able to tell you. It's unfullfilling. For instance cigarette smoke contains a potent MAO inhibitor (which is a known antidepressant).

I tried cigarette holders, but mainly found it to be messy - they gum up with tar and are difficult to clean. They change the taste of the cigarette quite considerably - in short, I don't bother anymore.

Paperwise I use either hemp paper or unbleached normal paper.

This is the best I can do at this stage, if Kentucky organic will be available again, I'll order a whole container full ...

Thank you for your reply :)

Manitou is pretty easy for me to get in Aus, I know a few stores that sell it. However, I haven't seen American Spirit in stores in a long time. Both are available online though:

http://www.tobaccoblends.com.au/en/tobacco/80-manitou-organic-4006396138026.html
http://www.tobaccoblends.com.au/en/tobacco/150-american-spirit-organic-47995000820.html

Also found this yesterday:

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/5059/do-organic-cigarettes-such-as-american-spirit-contain-less-radioactive-materia

 

[adrenalexpire]

Didn't realise you can't edit posts on here :S

from that last link:

"I have been intensely researching this subject, and I have found several of the same claims from several different places. The fact is that Polonium 210 (210Po) is a very radioactive agent. The tobacco plant readily absorbs the 210Po because it mistakes it for a nutrient that it needs. Phosphate fertilizers, which are used by all of the major commercial cigarette manufactures because they are cheaper to use, contain 210Po. 210Po causes up to 97% of cancer-related smoking deaths. Organic cigarettes cannot use phosphate fertilizers, only natural fertilizers. Therefore they do not contain 210Po, and hence - they are a lot better for you, if you must smoke."

 

[nicklebleu]

Didn't realise you can't edit posts on here :S

from that last link:

"I have been intensely researching this subject, and I have found several of the same claims from several different places. The fact is that Polonium 210 (210Po) is a very radioactive agent. The tobacco plant readily absorbs the 210Po because it mistakes it for a nutrient that it needs. Phosphate fertilizers, which are used by all of the major commercial cigarette manufactures because they are cheaper to use, contain 210Po. 210Po causes up to 97% of cancer-related smoking deaths. Organic cigarettes cannot use phosphate fertilizers, only natural fertilizers. Therefore they do not contain 210Po, and hence - they are a lot better for you, if you must smoke."

Organic tobacco contains Po210 too, it is ubiquitously found in nature and one unfortuante thing about tobacco leaves is that the small hairs on top of them have the ability to trap dust particles (and hence Po210) and absorb their content into the plant. So probably it is a matter of degree ...

The issue around Po210 in tobacco is contentious - it is mostly rumours and opinions, I haven't found much facts or evidence about it - neither pro nor con. Po210 certainly is very toxic, probably so in minute quantities, but givent he state of scientific officialdom for me it seems impossible to draw any firm conclusion at this stage about Po210 content in tobacco versus negative effects.

The other problem is that it is very hard to separate different effcts from one another. For instance there is growing data indicating that diesel particles might be carcinogenic, and some data even might be indicating, that smoking could offer some protection from inhaled diesel particles in regards to lung cancer. But again, the PTB don't like to publish data that goes against their narrative, so this evidence is weak too.

In summary, I try to find organic tobacco, if I can - if not, I use what I think is second best, that is additive free tobacco.

If anyone has ever found firm evidence either pro or con the whole Po210 issue, I would be very interested.

 

[adrenalexpire]

Didn't realise you can't edit posts on here :S

from that last link:

"I have been intensely researching this subject, and I have found several of the same claims from several different places. The fact is that Polonium 210 (210Po) is a very radioactive agent. The tobacco plant readily absorbs the 210Po because it mistakes it for a nutrient that it needs. Phosphate fertilizers, which are used by all of the major commercial cigarette manufactures because they are cheaper to use, contain 210Po. 210Po causes up to 97% of cancer-related smoking deaths. Organic cigarettes cannot use phosphate fertilizers, only natural fertilizers. Therefore they do not contain 210Po, and hence - they are a lot better for you, if you must smoke."

Organic tobacco contains Po210 too, it is ubiquitously found in nature and one unfortuante thing about tobacco leaves is that the small hairs on top of them have the ability to trap dust particles (and hence Po210) and absorb their content into the plant. So probably it is a matter of degree ...

The issue around Po210 in tobacco is contentious - it is mostly rumours and opinions, I haven't found much facts or evidence about it - neither pro nor con. Po210 certainly is very toxic, probably so in minute quantities, but givent he state of scientific officialdom for me it seems impossible to draw any firm conclusion at this stage about Po210 content in tobacco versus negative effects.

The other problem is that it is very hard to separate different effcts from one another. For instance there is growing data indicating that diesel particles might be carcinogenic, and some data even might be indicating, that smoking could offer some protection from inhaled diesel particles in regards to lung cancer. But again, the PTB don't like to publish data that goes against their narrative, so this evidence is weak too.

In summary, I try to find organic tobacco, if I can - if not, I use what I think is second best, that is additive free tobacco.

If anyone has ever found firm evidence either pro or con the whole Po210 issue, I would be very interested.

Thanks for this, interested to find out more about it.

That seems likes a reasonable approach to the situation nickelbleu ;)

Also found another organic branded tobacco that also seems to be unavailable :(:

http://www.4noggins.com/browseproducts/Cornell---Diehl-ORGANIC-PIPE-DREAMS-2oz..HTML

 

[H-KQGE]

A big "whoops!" moment this one. Cue the outraged comments at the bottom.

_http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2523949/Nicotine-GOOD-Scientist-employed-cigarette-manufacturers-claims-highly-addictive-drug-makes-brain-work-better.html

Nicotine is GOOD for you': Scientist employed by cigarette manufacturers claims highly addictive drug makes your brain work better

David O'Reill, scientific director for British American Tobacco said nicotine makes a person's brain work better
Health experts have branded the claim 'irresponsible' accusing him of trying to sell more cigarettes
Department of Health lists smoking as the cause of the most preventable deaths in the UK - reaching 80,000 in 2011

A scientist employed by one of the biggest cigarette manufacturers today said nicotine is good for your health.
Group scientific director for British American Tobacco, which makes Benson & Hedges, Dunhill and Lucky Strikes, David O'Reilly has been branded 'irresponsible' and accused of telling just part of the story.
He told the Sunday Times Magazine smoking helps a person's brain work more effectively, adding: 'It helps with cognition, stimulation and relaxes.'

His controversial claim came just a week after New York University researchers warned smokers of ecigarettes could inhale more nicotine than those who smoke regular cigarettes.

Mr O'Reilly said likened taking a puff from an ecigarette to drinking a cup of coffee, as he claimed the practise was safe.

But the senior molecular biologist has come under fire from health experts, who have accused him of trying to help 'sell as many cigarettes as possible'.
Professor John Britton, chairman of the Royal College of Physicians tobacco advisory group and professor of epidemiology at the University of Nottingham, said one hit of nicotine can have positive effects on the brain.

But he warned the drug is highly addictive, leaving smokers needing to get their hit to enable their brains to function normally.
'It is true that in a single use, nicotine probably does improve concentration and hand-eye co-ordination, on a par with what you get from caffeine,' he said.

'But it is also a powerfully addictive drug, and there comes a time when you need nicotine just for your brain to function normally.'

A spokesman for BAT, said the company 'absolutely' stood by Mr O'Reilly's statement.
He said Mr O'Reilly had not advised the drug was good for you in the sense of keeping well hydrated.
A spokeswoman for Cancer Research added: ' We don't fully understand the long-term effects of nicotine use.'
The Department of Health website reveals smoking causes more preventable deaths in the UK each year than any other addiction, illness or disease - reaching 80,000 in 2011.

I might just post some of those links from the previous page (Richard White book & YouTube review) on the D.M. & wait for them to get incensed...

 

[SeekinTruth]

A spokeswoman for Cancer Research added: ' We don't fully understand the long-term effects of nicotine use.'

Really? You'd think if there was any real science behind the anti-smoking propaganda, they WOULD understand the long-term effects of nicotine use by now. Well, I understand, from more than 30 years of smoking, the long-term effects. It's all good! :)

 

[Galaxia2002]

Didn't realise you can't edit posts on here :S

from that last link:

"I have been intensely researching this subject, and I have found several of the same claims from several different places. The fact is that Polonium 210 (210Po) is a very radioactive agent. The tobacco plant readily absorbs the 210Po because it mistakes it for a nutrient that it needs. Phosphate fertilizers, which are used by all of the major commercial cigarette manufactures because they are cheaper to use, contain 210Po. 210Po causes up to 97% of cancer-related smoking deaths. Organic cigarettes cannot use phosphate fertilizers, only natural fertilizers. Therefore they do not contain 210Po, and hence - they are a lot better for you, if you must smoke."

Organic tobacco contains Po210 too, it is ubiquitously found in nature and one unfortuante thing about tobacco leaves is that the small hairs on top of them have the ability to trap dust particles (and hence Po210) and absorb their content into the plant. So probably it is a matter of degree ...

The issue around Po210 in tobacco is contentious - it is mostly rumours and opinions, I haven't found much facts or evidence about it - neither pro nor con. Po210 certainly is very toxic, probably so in minute quantities, but givent he state of scientific officialdom for me it seems impossible to draw any firm conclusion at this stage about Po210 content in tobacco versus negative effects.

The other problem is that it is very hard to separate different effcts from one another. For instance there is growing data indicating that diesel particles might be carcinogenic, and some data even might be indicating, that smoking could offer some protection from inhaled diesel particles in regards to lung cancer. But again, the PTB don't like to publish data that goes against their narrative, so this evidence is weak too.

In summary, I try to find organic tobacco, if I can - if not, I use what I think is second best, that is additive free tobacco.

If anyone has ever found firm evidence either pro or con the whole Po210 issue, I would be very interested.

I agree with nicklebleu regard Polonium. I tend to think that the problem in not so much about organic vs non organic, but real tobacco vs commercial reconstituted tobacco. In the last case almost as up 40 % of the cigarette is plain paper waste, roots and tails mixed with flavorings agents to simulate a real one. Even so commercial cigarettes not produces the cancer rates the mainstream are promoting. Of course If you find the organic variety go ahead but if you don't find it temporarily , I didn't worry so much because at least is real not commercial fake.

 

[adrenalexpire]

Hmm..

_http://www.naturalnews.com/043263_Big_Tobacco_cigarettes_toxic_chemicals.html

_http://www.naturalnews.com/040703_GMO_tobacco_chemicals_in_cigarettes.html

 

[H-KQGE]

Hmm..

_http://www.naturalnews.com/043263_Big_Tobacco_cigarettes_toxic_chemicals.html

_http://www.naturalnews.com/040703_GMO_tobacco_chemicals_in_cigarettes.html

Well apart from any "muddying of the waters", you shouldn't be smoking cigarettes anyway. I mean the chemical nightmare that comes from the large companies, since some people insist on referring to pure(er) tobacco "roll-ups" as cigarettes too. I would've thought that knowledge of at least SOME of those pollutants that are in there would deter people; the "human mind" is just way too fragile to reconcile what could keep "it" "alive" though. On this issue, I'll defer to the more knowledgeable members, but it should be obvious that tobacco/nicotine is part of an optimal diet & health regiment.

 

[shijing]

Hi adrenalexpire,

Thanks for your contributions so far -- in case you haven't seen it, we usually invite new members to introduce themselves on the Newbies board, telling us a bit about yourself and how you found us.

 

[adrenalexpire]

Hi adrenalexpire,

Thanks for your contributions so far -- in case you haven't seen it, we usually invite new members to introduce themselves on the Newbies board, telling us a bit about yourself and how you found us.

No problem :)

So I bought a pouch of Manitou today (I've had it before but it's not cheap, $37.50 in Aus). I had about 5 cigarettes; if I were to have the equivalent in tailor mades or other branded RYO tobacco (winfield, port royal, etc) I would be throwing my guts up by now. Instead, I feel quite enlivened. Definitely recommended.

 

[ligero]

I am not sure how to quote a message. I read this forum frequently but I have never made a comment. Someone on this page asked about the Plasencia Reserva Organica Cigars. I have experience with these so I thought I would add this information in case it would be helpful to someone.

I think these are authentically organic cigars and they taste good. I have problems with inflammation, a compromised immune system, and candida. My husband smokes cigars and suggested to me that smoking would help with the inflammation. I was concerned about the other issues of candidiasis and a compromised immune system. I tried to smoke his cigars but this would dry out my tongue and throat and cause thrush to flare up. He purchased organic tobacco and raw rolling papers for me. I smoked the hand rolled cigarettes and also a pipe for awhile and much to my surprise, felt relief from inflammation and digestive problems. We then discovered the Verdadero and Plasencia cigars. I could not smoke the Verdadero and they tasted awful, something like grass. I refer to the grass of lawns not the fun kind. The Plasencia are fantastic though. My husband is a cigar aficionado and he thinks the Organicas taste very much like good Cubans. I have great benefit from them and no problems. No thrush. I like the idea of smoking pure tobacco with no fillers, additives or paper included. I find them easier to smoke than a pipe. My experience has been that there are benefits to smoking good tobacco. Good cigars do not smell gross like a commercial cigarette. Even the non-organic cigars do not have chemicals in them. They are just tobacco. I hope this was helpful.

I am also on a ketogenic diet due to the information on these forums and sott. This has also made a significant difference in my health. All information from the authorities seems backwards and upside down. Thanks to Laura and everyone who shares information here. I do not exaggerate when I say that reading info on these forums has literally saved my life. I was a mess and now I am healthy and functional for the first time in decades. I did everything the authorities told me was correct and healthful. I was a strict vegetarian and never smoked or drank yet I was dying slowly and painfully. I had no sense of taste or smell and no appetite. I constantly had infections in my lungs and stomach. My bones snapped like twigs from minor injuries. Now I smoke and eat fats and meat and feel fantastic. If anyone suggested this to me ten years ago I'd have thought they were insane. Now I realize that the authorities, whoever they truly are, lie to us and keep us weak and sick on purpose.