Smoking is... good?

JayMark

The Living Force
denekin said:
Savon Tobacco: a reference was made on this thread to this company.
A search led to this message:

We regret to announce that Sovran Solutions Online (SSO) has been forced to close its doors.

SSO fought the good fight long and hard against the powers-that-shouldn't-be to serve and assist smokers in the USA, but the forces lined up against them were unrelenting and powerful, and I suppose their victory was inevitable. A shame.

Statement received from SSO:
On 6/13/13 SSO lost the payment processing service of MSPC due to legal action against them.

On 6/17/13 the decision was made by Sovran Solutions, Inc. located in the Republic of Panama, and owner of Sovran Solutions Online buyer’s club, to discontinue all operations in the U.S.A.

As of 6/14/13 SSO has sold and shipped it's last product. All Referral Members should take down or remove all information on all web sites regarding the SSO opportunity immediately.

The SSO site and Message Center have gone down, presumably permanently, as of this writing on June 22, 2013.

All of us members will suffer the results of this inevitable decision. As you know, we were only a member of SSO, just like you, and that is all the news we have. Please don't ask. We have NO answers...

Savontobacco.com Management

That's sad news. Darn it!

Recently enough, PureLeaf.co.uk has also been denied to send shipments out of the UK. Their last shipments were intercepted and held at the customs and they also have no clue as to what's going on. That's really a frustrating situation.

I can't imagine how I would feel if I couldn't get anymore tobacco... :cry:
 

H-KQGE

Dagobah Resident
I'll have to check to see if they're having difficulties at home as well. I was thinking of using them when I (finally) restart smoking. I hope they can still do business. :huh:
article said:
[…]the powers-that-shouldn't-be[…]

Exactly.
 

Altair

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
I have a couple of questions about smoking:

1. After having smoked a cigarette I have a feeling my lungs are dirty with tar and that I can't make a full breath for an hour. Why is it so? Is the tar in tabacco in any way detrimental to us? Should one use cigarettes with filter (Yuma, American Spirit)?

2. 100 mg nicotine per day was just a personal recommendation of C's for Laura, wasn't it?

3. How much nicotine means "mild smoking" (as suggested by C's)?

4. Is there any difference between organic Yuma/American Spirit cigarettes and organic Yuma/American Spirit tabacco (for rolling cigarettes)?

Many thanks in advance :)

Altair
 

H-KQGE

Dagobah Resident
Wow. Just... Wow.

http://www.newswise.com/articles/how-smokers-can-stay-quit-after-new-year-s-requit-mondays-worldwide-study-shows

How Smokers Can Stay Quit After New Year’s: Requit Mondays, Worldwide Study Shows
Google searches for ”help quit smoking” spike on Mondays



It’s that time of year. According to a study published in the Journal of Clinical Psychology, 120 million Americans will make New Year’s resolutions, with health-related goals like quitting smoking topping the list. Unfortunately, most of those quitters will be puffing away by Groundhog Day.

Instead of encouraging smokers to plan one quit attempt around New Year’s, which comes only once a year, experts believe a better strategy would be to follow a New Year’s quit with a weekly recommitment to quit that takes advantage of natural weekly cycles.

In a 2013 study published in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers from San Diego State University, the Santa Fe Institute, The Monday Campaigns and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health monitored global Google search query logs from 2008 to 2012 in English, French, Chinese, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish for searches related to quitting, such as "help quit smoking," to examine weekly patterns in smoking cessation contemplations for the first time. The study found that people search about quitting smoking more often early in the week, with the highest query volumes on Mondays. This pattern was consistent across all six languages, suggesting a global predisposition to thinking about quitting smoking early in the week, particularly on Mondays.

“On New Year’s Day, interest in smoking cessation doubles,” said the study’s lead author, John Ayers of San Diego State University. “But New Year’s happens one day a year. Here we’re seeing a spike that happens once a week.”
Besides catching smokers’ attention on Mondays, weekly cues can help people stay on track with their quit attempts. Since it takes an average of seven to 10 quit attempts to succeed, encouraging people to requit or recommit to their quit attempt once a week can reduce the overall time it takes to quit for good.
Joanna Cohen, a co-author of the Google study and director of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Institute for Global Tobacco Control, believes “campaigns for people to quit may benefit from shifting to weekly cues to increase the number of quit attempts participants make each year.” In other words, quitters can use Monday as a weekly re-set to make another quit attempt if they slip up.
Another advantage to Monday cues is that they tap into what the scientists describe as a collective mindset around quitting.
Morgan Johnson, director of programs and research at the Monday Campaigns and another co-author of the Google paper, said that the surge in quitting contemplations on Monday can be used to provide social support for quitters, an important factor in long-term success. “People around the world are starting the week with intentions to quit smoking – if we can connect those people at school, work and communities we can make a regular ‘Monday Quit’ the cultural norm.”

To learn more about the Quit and Stay Quit Monday initiative and receive weekly tips on sticking to your quits, visit _www.mondaycampaigns.org. And to help you plan a resolution to quit that will last well past Groundhog Day, here are five tips that leverage the power of Monday to quit for good:
1. Find a Monday Quit Buddy

At the beginning of each week, seek encouragement from fellow quitters, family, coworkers, or an organized support group—whatever works for you. Take the time to collectively celebrate a smokefree week or encourage each other to quit again if you’ve relapsed. Don’t forget to discuss common triggers, like hectic schedules and holiday parties. Fostering a system of support provides the motivation you need to stick to your plan and quit for good.

2. Do a Monday Check-in
Planning is critical to success. Take a few minutes every Monday to assess the progress you made over the previous week and make a plan for the upcoming week. Write down any cravings you had and how you overcame them, and record any upcoming triggers you may face in the current week.

3. Recommit to Quit Each Monday
To keep your quit going for the long haul, take a moment each Monday to recommit to your decision to quit. Each week, pledge to be smokefree, and remind yourself of the reasons you quit in the first place.

4. Reward Yourself on Monday
It’s no small thing to remain smokefree for a whole week. If you make it
through the week without lighting up, use the money you may have saved on buying cigarettes to treat yourself to a movie, go out to dinner, or whatever reward you think will keep you motivated to stay quit for good. You can even start a “ciggy bank” to collect the money you’ve saved that you will use for your rewards.

5. If at first you don’t succeed, quit quit again on Monday
Quitting is tough. The most important thing to remember is to not let a relapse become the reason your resolution fails. Regardless of how poorly you stuck to your quit last week, you can still determine the success of your current week—that’s the beauty of a regular check-in. Allowing yourself to try again every Monday provides a renewable opportunity to quit for good.

Smoking must be super duper powerful because all the searches that i've done on this topic returns.. let's just say a he'll of a lot of articles on it. Reading this I just thought of an alien invasion 50's B-movie & how people who go along quietly are special etc. It was probably "invasion of the bodysnatchers" (the original) that sprung to mind. The "us V them" community ostracism of "outsiders" threatening the health & wealth of the new majority. :shock:
 

Oxajil

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Hi Altair,

Altair said:
I have a couple of questions about smoking:

1. After having smoked a cigarette I have a feeling my lungs are dirty with tar and that I can't make a full breath for an hour. Why is it so? Is the tar in tabacco in any way detrimental to us?

First, I would say, what kind of cigarette were you smoking? If it is one of those regular ones, it might've been the additives that might have made you feel uneasy. Second, here's something about tar from the book Smoke Screens that might give you some more information (apologies for its length):

1: The Black Lung Myth

A common idea, amongst smokers and non-smokers alike, is that smoking causes tar deposits in the lungs. It is believed these tar deposits turn the lungs black and cause cancer. Cancer Research UK says of tar that it is “a sticky black residue made up of thousands of chemicals that stays in the smoker’s lungs and causes cancer.” However, it does not take much logical thought and science to realise this not only is not true, but cannot be true. The idea that smoking causes black lungs is no more than a myth, and the evidence for this is plentiful.

Possibly the first thing people say on the subject is that they have seen pictures of a smoker’s blackened lung and a non-smoker’s pink lung. While it may be true that the blackened lung was that of a smoker and the pink lung that of a non-smoker, that is not the end of the story; the pictures are invariably of a smoker’s cancerous lung and a healthy non-smoker’s lung, and we now know that cancerous organs often turn black. A report in MNDaily on a cancer exhibition called Cancer and the Human Body explained that, as part of the event, a black, oversized lung was shown next to a normal healthy lung to show the effects of lung cancer. What this serves to show is that lung cancer will usually turn the organ black.

A few years ago channel four ran a series of programmes showing autopsies conducted live by Dr Von Hagens, and one episode was on cancer. The woman having the autopsy performed was ravaged with cancer and it was very obvious which organs were cancerous by their colour: they were all black. Of course, not all cancerous organs are black, and indeed some are dyed for the purpose of education or scare-mongering.

Going back to the pictures of the two lungs, the fact that the smoker’s lung is always cancerous and the non-smoker’s lung always healthy means they are incomparable. If a smoker’s lung was compared with a non-smoker’s lung and neither had cancer then they would both look identical, and the same is true for a smoker’s and non-smoker’s lung with cancer. Furthermore, the photographs are invariably of the outside of the lung and not the inside. Cigarette smoke never reaches the outside of the lung and subsequently would have no chance to turn it black.

The original run of such photographs was pulled in 1969 as it was discovered that the lungs portrayed as smokers were, in fact, those of coal miners whose lungs had turned black from years of exposure to the soot and carbon. If smoking really was responsible for blackening the lungs, no such trickery would have been necessary.

In 1964 the U.S. Tobacco Research Council conducted a study of 3,000 lungs taken at autopsy for atypical metaplasia. The researchers found no difference between smokers and non-smokers. Also in 1964, in Germany, a study consisting of 26,000 autopsy records found that there was no significant relationship between smoking and lung cancer.

Today, even those conducting autopsies admit that looking at lungs alone is not a way to tell if the deceased smoked. Wray Kephart is a man who used to work in hospitals performing autopsies, usually on the behalf of insurance companies. Writing online, Kephart claims to have performed around 1560 autopsies and he says it is normally impossible to tell whether the deceased was a smoker or not from autopsy. This was confirmed by Dr Jan Zeldenrust, a Dutch pathologist for the Government of Holland from 1951-1984. In a television interview in the 1980s he stated:

"I could never see on a pair of lungs if they belonged to a smoker or non-smoker. I can see clearly the difference between sick and healthy lungs. The only black lungs I’ve seen are from peat-workers and coal miners, never from smokers."

Further confirmation came recently when I was able to speak to a Canadian Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) named Adam Highberg. The discussion was mainly about oral cancers but he also spoke briefly about smokers’ lungs, saying:

"I have seen diseased lungs before, and sometimes in the case of smokers, but not always. These are normally found in people who live and work in unhealthy environments for extended periods of time. You know, the guy who works in a fibreglass plant but never wears a mask. Because of this, it would be almost impossible to say that black lungs are solely that of smoking; I believe that it is far more likely an environment issue."

The lungs are always clear unless the deceased had lung cancer or heavy exposure to pollution, such as that from living in a large city or an occupation like coal mining. Living in a city, or any area with a significant amount of pollution, is one factor that many people are unaware of or choose to ignore when it comes to the state of the lungs. Anyone who lives in, or visits, such a place will be aware of the black that they either cough up or produce when blowing their nose, and it is this same produce that can be seen in X-rays on the lungs. The produce in question is elemental carbon, which will indeed stick to the lungs and living in a built-up area for a long time can turn the inside of the lungs somewhat black.

[...]

Another common misconception is that cigarettes contain tar – they do not; at least, not the type of tar that is used on roads as many people now believe. As stated at the start of this chapter, the general belief is the tar from cigarettes deposits in the lungs and causes cancer. This simply is not the case. If, indeed, cigarettes caused tar to be deposited in the lungs of smokers then each and every one would die of asphyxiation long before they ever got the chance to get cancer. Researchers would also be able to simply put tar in the lungs of animals and wait for the cancer to develop, yet this has never been the case. Tar is a very thick substance and it can kill people very easily.

In the days when Christianity was illegal, one of the methods of killing the martyrs was by having their bodies dipped in tar. The tar blocked up their pores and prevented their skin being able to breathe, thus killing them. Clearly, there is no way someone could live with much tar in their lungs. Furthermore, if there was tar present in cigarettes it would not only be in the lungs, but also in the mouth and throat as well as on teeth and fingers, and smokers would cough up chunks of black tar. This has never happened. Let us take a look at the facts:

In America, full-strength cigarettes contain 20 mg of ‘tar’. The lung capacity of an average adult human is about six litres, or 6,000 cubic centimetres. At room temperature, one cubic centimetre (one ml) of water weighs about one gram. However, tar is an oily substance that floats on water, so one millilitre weighs less than a gram. The exact density of tar depends on its composition, but tar is usually a mixture of many different oily chemicals and at its densest one gram occupies about 1.25 ml of volume. At 20 mg (0.025 ml) of ‘tar’ per cigarette, it would take at least 50 cigarettes, or two and a half packs, to yield one gram of ‘tar’.

This means that, after one and a quarter packs, or 25 cigarettes, of full-strength cigarettes, a smoker would have about 0.5 ml of ‘tar’ in their lungs. As already mentioned, the lungs have a capacity of 6,000ml of air, so 12,000 packs would be needed to completely fill them with ‘tar’. Smoking one pack per day would accomplish that in about 33 years. This means that anyone who started smoking at age fifteen would have nothing but a thick slurry of tar oozing out of their nose and mouth by age 48. There would be no air left in his or her lungs at all, just ‘tar’. This, however, is not the end of the story. Obviously, if the lungs were completely filled with tar, then suffocation and death would be imminent. The lungs do not have to be completely filled to result in suffocation; about a cup (500 ml) is sufficient, and that is about 1,000 packs of full strength cigarettes. This could be smoked in just under three years at a pack a day. If the popular myths about cigarette ‘tar’ were true then every pack-a-day smoker would be dead, from suffocation, before the end of three years. This is not the case; everyone either knows or has seen an elderly smoker, or knows people who have been smoking for over three years.

Even before a smoker reaches the stage of 500 ml of tar being in their lungs to kill them, they would certainly have very minimal lung capacity and would be constantly out of breath – to the point where any exercise, including walking, would be dangerous as their lungs could not provide the body with the oxygen it needs. Imagine a sponge: when dipped in water it absorbs the liquid. Imagine that same sponge dipped in tar and then in water, the tar coating would stop any water being absorbed. The same is true of the lungs with oxygen: tar would prevent oxygen passing through into the bloodstream, so death would occur instantly. All smokers would suffocate to death.

Some people attempt to counter this by saying that the body rids itself of toxins and waste. Anyone with any knowledge of tar would realise that the body cannot simply eject it – tar in the body stays there. The body can, and does, eject particles through phlegm and cilia, such as the aforementioned black produce apparent after blowing one’s nose after a day in a heavily polluted area. However, actual solid tar, which is what we are led to believe accumulates in smokers lungs, is not simply ejected. If it really were so easy to get rid of, it would not have killed so many martyrs whom had it smeared on their skin to cause death by suffocation.

So, we are left with the question of ‘what is the tar in cigarettes?’ According to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, tar is “total particulate matter…less nicotine and water”. In other words, cigarette tar is the solid remains once the water and nicotine products have gone (through smoking, or, at least, the tobacco product being lit). It is also said the tar is “the complex of particulate matter in the smoke that is left behind on a filter after subtracting all the nicotine and moisture.” Interestingly, neither of these definitions supports the anti-smoking mantra that the ‘tar’ is the same as road tar and that it collects in the lungs.

It is important to remember that in the 1950s and 1960s the word ‘tar’, when used in relation to cigarettes, was used with quotations marks around it, as in this book. This was to signify that it was just a term used, and that it was not actual tar like we see on the roads. Nowadays the quotation marks have been dropped and we are told it is the same substance; when I was in school our teacher told us they add road tar to cigarettes to make them burn easier, a statement that is clearly false. The notion that smoking blackens the lungs can be traced back to 1948 to Ernst Wynder M.D ...

Wynder, then a first-year medical student in St Louis, was witness to an autopsy of a man who had died of lung cancer and he noted the lungs were blackened. The sight roused his curiosity and he looked into the background of the patient, discovering that there was no obvious exposure to air pollution but that the deceased had smoked two packs of cigarettes a day for thirty years. He linked the two and then spent his career trying to prove smoking causes cancer. However, as we are now aware, through advancements in science and our understanding of cancer, it was actually the disease itself that blackened the lungs and not the smoking. It is clear, then, that the premise smoking blackens lungs – and, indeed, causes cancer – was flawed and inaccurate from the start.

Thus, it is obvious that smoking cannot and does not leave tar in the lungs, nor does it turn the lungs black. Black lungs are the result of one or both of two things: spending years in an area with high pollution, such as a city or working as a coal miner; or cancer. In pictures comparing a non-smoker’s lung with a smoker’s lung, they are a non-cancerous lung and a cancerous lung, and no comparisons or assertions on lifestyle can be drawn.

Altair said:
Should one use cigarettes with filter (Yuma, American Spirit)?

I personally don't use filters, but I know that some other members do. I guess it comes down to what you prefer.

Altair said:
2. 100 mg nicotine per day was just a personal recommendation of C's for Laura, wasn't it?

Yes, I think so. In the end it comes down to whether smoking is something for you, and how many cigarettes is just right for you. And for me the latter fluctuates sometimes. Sometimes I need less, sometimes more.

Altair said:
3. How much nicotine means "mild smoking" (as suggested by C's)?

I'm not sure, but that might depend on you? Maybe mild smoking would be just a couple of cigarettes a day?

Altair said:
4. Is there any difference between organic Yuma/American Spirit cigarettes and organic Yuma/American Spirit tabacco (for rolling cigarettes)?

I really don't like smoking a lot of the Yuma cigarettes, I don't know if it's the paper, but it gives me some weird headache. I prefer the loose tobacco much more for rolling cigarettes, and I use non-bleached (organic) papers for that.

Hope this helps!
 

Altair

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Hi Oxajil,

many thanks for your explanations. I'll try to get the book you have mentioned (Rich White’s Smoke Screens )

Greets

Altair
 

denekin

Jedi
from: Altair on Yesterday at 08:30:35 AM

I have a couple of questions about smoking:

1. After having smoked a cigarette I have a feeling my lungs are dirty with tar and that I can't make a full breath for an hour. Why is it so? Is the tar in tabacco in any way detrimental to us?

I have the same response with ordinary cigarettes; I suspect it is the additives. I do not like the "natural" cigarettes because they are so dry to my taste. I have taken to making my own shisha and smoking it in a traditional water pipe. A lot of the undesirable elements in tobacco smoke seem to be filtered out. I do not find any diminishing of the ability to breath, quite the opposite.

I buy organic or natural pipe tobacco and add spearmint, rosemary and other mints from my own garden to this. Below is a link to a good and straightforward You Tube explanation of making your own shisha:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLM_oNydH7Y
 

ligero

The Force is Strong With This One
I thought I would share an interesting exchange that my husband had with a tobacconist on FB this morning. This took place on a public forum so I think it is okay to post it here without mentioning names.

Our favorite pipe/rolling tobacco which is called Kentucky Select Organic has been discontinued so he has been looking around for back stock. He found it listed in a catalog as out of stock so he simply asked if the product would be available again. This is the response.

"There seems to be an issue with the use of the term "organic" as it applies to tobacco. Every tobacco product labeled that way winds up being removed from the market. It doesn't appear that it will be available any more."

The emphasis is mine.
 

JayMark

The Living Force
ligero said:
I thought I would share an interesting exchange that my husband had with a tobacconist on FB this morning. This took place on a public forum so I think it is okay to post it here without mentioning names.

Our favorite pipe/rolling tobacco which is called Kentucky Select Organic has been discontinued so he has been looking around for back stock. He found it listed in a catalog as out of stock so he simply asked if the product would be available again. This is the response.

"There seems to be an issue with the use of the term "organic" as it applies to tobacco. Every tobacco product labeled that way winds up being removed from the market. It doesn't appear that it will be available any more."

The emphasis is mine.

Interesting. My supplier (Whole Leaf Tobacco) use the term ''all natural unprocessed tobacco''. No ''organic'' label of any kind. I wonder if it has anything to do with it.
 

Mr. Premise

The Living Force
JayMark said:
ligero said:
I thought I would share an interesting exchange that my husband had with a tobacconist on FB this morning. This took place on a public forum so I think it is okay to post it here without mentioning names.

Our favorite pipe/rolling tobacco which is called Kentucky Select Organic has been discontinued so he has been looking around for back stock. He found it listed in a catalog as out of stock so he simply asked if the product would be available again. This is the response.

"There seems to be an issue with the use of the term "organic" as it applies to tobacco. Every tobacco product labeled that way winds up being removed from the market. It doesn't appear that it will be available any more."

The emphasis is mine.

Interesting. My supplier (Whole Leaf Tobacco) use the term ''all natural unprocessed tobacco''. No ''organic'' label of any kind. I wonder if it has anything to do with it.
No I don't think that has anything to do with it. It's a lot easier to grow tobacco that is "natural, no additives" than it is to grow it commercially organic. Natural no additives just means you don't add anything after harvest. Before harvest you can use pesticides, etc. It's pretty easy to grow it organic in your back yard, but on a large scale, to not use chemical pesiticides and fertilizers would be very costly in dollars and labor. So right now, I'm guessing American Spirit Organic is absorbing a lot of the supply.

Added: we are seeing this a lot in the organic food world. Apparently this past summer, organic livestock feeds were in short supply. I think the problem has to do with the fact that organic is rising fast in popularity, but it can take a long time to get your farm certified organic, so demand can easily outstrip supply in the short run.
 
A

adrenalexpire

Guest
Von Eicken (the company that owns Manitou) has some useful information on their website:

http://www.von-eicken.com/en/home

Pepe and Sioux seem like two other good additive-free brands.
 

Altair

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Oxajil said:
Hi Altair,

Altair said:
I have a couple of questions about smoking:

1. After having smoked a cigarette I have a feeling my lungs are dirty with tar and that I can't make a full breath for an hour. Why is it so? Is the tar in tabacco in any way detrimental to us?

First, I would say, what kind of cigarette were you smoking? If it is one of those regular ones, it might've been the additives that might have made you feel uneasy. Second, here's something about tar from the book Smoke Screens that might give you some more information (apologies for its length):

1: The Black Lung Myth

A common idea, amongst smokers and non-smokers alike, is that smoking causes tar deposits in the lungs. It is believed these tar deposits turn the lungs black and cause cancer. Cancer Research UK says of tar that it is “a sticky black residue made up of thousands of chemicals that stays in the smoker’s lungs and causes cancer.” However, it does not take much logical thought and science to realise this not only is not true, but cannot be true. The idea that smoking causes black lungs is no more than a myth, and the evidence for this is plentiful.

Possibly the first thing people say on the subject is that they have seen pictures of a smoker’s blackened lung and a non-smoker’s pink lung. While it may be true that the blackened lung was that of a smoker and the pink lung that of a non-smoker, that is not the end of the story; the pictures are invariably of a smoker’s cancerous lung and a healthy non-smoker’s lung, and we now know that cancerous organs often turn black. A report in MNDaily on a cancer exhibition called Cancer and the Human Body explained that, as part of the event, a black, oversized lung was shown next to a normal healthy lung to show the effects of lung cancer. What this serves to show is that lung cancer will usually turn the organ black.

A few years ago channel four ran a series of programmes showing autopsies conducted live by Dr Von Hagens, and one episode was on cancer. The woman having the autopsy performed was ravaged with cancer and it was very obvious which organs were cancerous by their colour: they were all black. Of course, not all cancerous organs are black, and indeed some are dyed for the purpose of education or scare-mongering.

Going back to the pictures of the two lungs, the fact that the smoker’s lung is always cancerous and the non-smoker’s lung always healthy means they are incomparable. If a smoker’s lung was compared with a non-smoker’s lung and neither had cancer then they would both look identical, and the same is true for a smoker’s and non-smoker’s lung with cancer. Furthermore, the photographs are invariably of the outside of the lung and not the inside. Cigarette smoke never reaches the outside of the lung and subsequently would have no chance to turn it black.

The original run of such photographs was pulled in 1969 as it was discovered that the lungs portrayed as smokers were, in fact, those of coal miners whose lungs had turned black from years of exposure to the soot and carbon. If smoking really was responsible for blackening the lungs, no such trickery would have been necessary.

In 1964 the U.S. Tobacco Research Council conducted a study of 3,000 lungs taken at autopsy for atypical metaplasia. The researchers found no difference between smokers and non-smokers. Also in 1964, in Germany, a study consisting of 26,000 autopsy records found that there was no significant relationship between smoking and lung cancer.

Today, even those conducting autopsies admit that looking at lungs alone is not a way to tell if the deceased smoked. Wray Kephart is a man who used to work in hospitals performing autopsies, usually on the behalf of insurance companies. Writing online, Kephart claims to have performed around 1560 autopsies and he says it is normally impossible to tell whether the deceased was a smoker or not from autopsy. This was confirmed by Dr Jan Zeldenrust, a Dutch pathologist for the Government of Holland from 1951-1984. In a television interview in the 1980s he stated:

"I could never see on a pair of lungs if they belonged to a smoker or non-smoker. I can see clearly the difference between sick and healthy lungs. The only black lungs I’ve seen are from peat-workers and coal miners, never from smokers."

Further confirmation came recently when I was able to speak to a Canadian Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) named Adam Highberg. The discussion was mainly about oral cancers but he also spoke briefly about smokers’ lungs, saying:

"I have seen diseased lungs before, and sometimes in the case of smokers, but not always. These are normally found in people who live and work in unhealthy environments for extended periods of time. You know, the guy who works in a fibreglass plant but never wears a mask. Because of this, it would be almost impossible to say that black lungs are solely that of smoking; I believe that it is far more likely an environment issue."

The lungs are always clear unless the deceased had lung cancer or heavy exposure to pollution, such as that from living in a large city or an occupation like coal mining. Living in a city, or any area with a significant amount of pollution, is one factor that many people are unaware of or choose to ignore when it comes to the state of the lungs. Anyone who lives in, or visits, such a place will be aware of the black that they either cough up or produce when blowing their nose, and it is this same produce that can be seen in X-rays on the lungs. The produce in question is elemental carbon, which will indeed stick to the lungs and living in a built-up area for a long time can turn the inside of the lungs somewhat black.

[...]

Another common misconception is that cigarettes contain tar – they do not; at least, not the type of tar that is used on roads as many people now believe. As stated at the start of this chapter, the general belief is the tar from cigarettes deposits in the lungs and causes cancer. This simply is not the case. If, indeed, cigarettes caused tar to be deposited in the lungs of smokers then each and every one would die of asphyxiation long before they ever got the chance to get cancer. Researchers would also be able to simply put tar in the lungs of animals and wait for the cancer to develop, yet this has never been the case. Tar is a very thick substance and it can kill people very easily.

In the days when Christianity was illegal, one of the methods of killing the martyrs was by having their bodies dipped in tar. The tar blocked up their pores and prevented their skin being able to breathe, thus killing them. Clearly, there is no way someone could live with much tar in their lungs. Furthermore, if there was tar present in cigarettes it would not only be in the lungs, but also in the mouth and throat as well as on teeth and fingers, and smokers would cough up chunks of black tar. This has never happened. Let us take a look at the facts:

In America, full-strength cigarettes contain 20 mg of ‘tar’. The lung capacity of an average adult human is about six litres, or 6,000 cubic centimetres. At room temperature, one cubic centimetre (one ml) of water weighs about one gram. However, tar is an oily substance that floats on water, so one millilitre weighs less than a gram. The exact density of tar depends on its composition, but tar is usually a mixture of many different oily chemicals and at its densest one gram occupies about 1.25 ml of volume. At 20 mg (0.025 ml) of ‘tar’ per cigarette, it would take at least 50 cigarettes, or two and a half packs, to yield one gram of ‘tar’.

This means that, after one and a quarter packs, or 25 cigarettes, of full-strength cigarettes, a smoker would have about 0.5 ml of ‘tar’ in their lungs. As already mentioned, the lungs have a capacity of 6,000ml of air, so 12,000 packs would be needed to completely fill them with ‘tar’. Smoking one pack per day would accomplish that in about 33 years. This means that anyone who started smoking at age fifteen would have nothing but a thick slurry of tar oozing out of their nose and mouth by age 48. There would be no air left in his or her lungs at all, just ‘tar’. This, however, is not the end of the story. Obviously, if the lungs were completely filled with tar, then suffocation and death would be imminent. The lungs do not have to be completely filled to result in suffocation; about a cup (500 ml) is sufficient, and that is about 1,000 packs of full strength cigarettes. This could be smoked in just under three years at a pack a day. If the popular myths about cigarette ‘tar’ were true then every pack-a-day smoker would be dead, from suffocation, before the end of three years. This is not the case; everyone either knows or has seen an elderly smoker, or knows people who have been smoking for over three years.

Even before a smoker reaches the stage of 500 ml of tar being in their lungs to kill them, they would certainly have very minimal lung capacity and would be constantly out of breath – to the point where any exercise, including walking, would be dangerous as their lungs could not provide the body with the oxygen it needs. Imagine a sponge: when dipped in water it absorbs the liquid. Imagine that same sponge dipped in tar and then in water, the tar coating would stop any water being absorbed. The same is true of the lungs with oxygen: tar would prevent oxygen passing through into the bloodstream, so death would occur instantly. All smokers would suffocate to death.

Some people attempt to counter this by saying that the body rids itself of toxins and waste. Anyone with any knowledge of tar would realise that the body cannot simply eject it – tar in the body stays there. The body can, and does, eject particles through phlegm and cilia, such as the aforementioned black produce apparent after blowing one’s nose after a day in a heavily polluted area. However, actual solid tar, which is what we are led to believe accumulates in smokers lungs, is not simply ejected. If it really were so easy to get rid of, it would not have killed so many martyrs whom had it smeared on their skin to cause death by suffocation.

So, we are left with the question of ‘what is the tar in cigarettes?’ According to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, tar is “total particulate matter…less nicotine and water”. In other words, cigarette tar is the solid remains once the water and nicotine products have gone (through smoking, or, at least, the tobacco product being lit). It is also said the tar is “the complex of particulate matter in the smoke that is left behind on a filter after subtracting all the nicotine and moisture.” Interestingly, neither of these definitions supports the anti-smoking mantra that the ‘tar’ is the same as road tar and that it collects in the lungs.

It is important to remember that in the 1950s and 1960s the word ‘tar’, when used in relation to cigarettes, was used with quotations marks around it, as in this book. This was to signify that it was just a term used, and that it was not actual tar like we see on the roads. Nowadays the quotation marks have been dropped and we are told it is the same substance; when I was in school our teacher told us they add road tar to cigarettes to make them burn easier, a statement that is clearly false. The notion that smoking blackens the lungs can be traced back to 1948 to Ernst Wynder M.D ...

Wynder, then a first-year medical student in St Louis, was witness to an autopsy of a man who had died of lung cancer and he noted the lungs were blackened. The sight roused his curiosity and he looked into the background of the patient, discovering that there was no obvious exposure to air pollution but that the deceased had smoked two packs of cigarettes a day for thirty years. He linked the two and then spent his career trying to prove smoking causes cancer. However, as we are now aware, through advancements in science and our understanding of cancer, it was actually the disease itself that blackened the lungs and not the smoking. It is clear, then, that the premise smoking blackens lungs – and, indeed, causes cancer – was flawed and inaccurate from the start.

Thus, it is obvious that smoking cannot and does not leave tar in the lungs, nor does it turn the lungs black. Black lungs are the result of one or both of two things: spending years in an area with high pollution, such as a city or working as a coal miner; or cancer. In pictures comparing a non-smoker’s lung with a smoker’s lung, they are a non-cancerous lung and a cancerous lung, and no comparisons or assertions on lifestyle can be drawn.

Altair said:
Should one use cigarettes with filter (Yuma, American Spirit)?

I personally don't use filters, but I know that some other members do. I guess it comes down to what you prefer.

Altair said:
2. 100 mg nicotine per day was just a personal recommendation of C's for Laura, wasn't it?

Yes, I think so. In the end it comes down to whether smoking is something for you, and how many cigarettes is just right for you. And for me the latter fluctuates sometimes. Sometimes I need less, sometimes more.

Altair said:
3. How much nicotine means "mild smoking" (as suggested by C's)?

I'm not sure, but that might depend on you? Maybe mild smoking would be just a couple of cigarettes a day?

Altair said:
4. Is there any difference between organic Yuma/American Spirit cigarettes and organic Yuma/American Spirit tabacco (for rolling cigarettes)?

I really don't like smoking a lot of the Yuma cigarettes, I don't know if it's the paper, but it gives me some weird headache. I prefer the loose tobacco much more for rolling cigarettes, and I use non-bleached (organic) papers for that.

Hope this helps!

Hi Oxajil

I ended up with Natural American Spirit Perique Blend. Actually I was smoking for many years long ago (expermenting with many diffrenent cigarette blends) but I couldn't imagine that the smoking of pure organic tobacco can be so pleasant. :) The American Spirit cigarettes caused by me dizziness and headache as well. It's a bit strange: they claim that the tobacco for cigarettes is also additive-free. Perhaps it is really the paper that counts. I'm using non-bleached now.

Thanks and Greets

Altair
 

ligero

The Force is Strong With This One
Altair said:
Hi Oxajil

I ended up with Natural American Spirit Perique Blend. Actually I was smoking for many years long ago (expermenting with many diffrenent cigarette blends) but I couldn't imagine that the smoking of pure organic tobacco can be so pleasant. :) The American Spirit cigarettes caused by me dizziness and headache as well. It's a bit strange: they claim that the tobacco for cigarettes is also additive-free. Perhaps it is really the paper that counts. I'm using non-bleached now.

Thanks and Greets

Altair

Yes. I think the fire safe chemicals on the paper are a very serious issue. When I could not find the organic loose tobacco and all I could get was the American Spirit cigarettes, I would take the tobacco out of the paper and roll them up in the raw papers. It made a very big difference but it is expensive and labor intensive. Then I switched to smoking cigars or a pipe. Now I am also experimenting with growing my tobacco just so I will know how to do this and I do also like cigarettes. I would always go with RYO because I don't like the toxic papers all cigarettes have to use now by law. Leaf Only now has organic whole leaf that can be easily shredded up and rolled. It's the most economical way to get organic tobacco for cigs.
 
Top Bottom