Smoking is... good?

[Elohir]

Thank you for your reply, Elohir.

The Cs have said that smoking is not for everyone. So I think that if you do not like smoking, or have never done it and have no desire to do it, then, smoking is not for you. And, as Flashgordonv said so much of the "scientific" research that has been done, is not really scientific at all.

As far as the rest of your post, I'll leave that to others to decide if they want to do that. There are some very good articles on SOTT about tobacco, too.

You're right about SOTT articles, I forgot to mention it and I havent read all of it. I plan to do this.

Thanks.

 

[Voyageur]

Thank you for your reply, Elohir.

The Cs have said that smoking is not for everyone. So I think that if you do not like smoking, or have never done it and have no desire to do it, then, smoking is not for you. And, as Flashgordonv said so much of the "scientific" research that has been done, is not really scientific at all.

As far as the rest of your post, I'll leave that to others to decide if they want to do that. There are some very good articles on SOTT about tobacco, too.

You're right about SOTT articles, I forgot to mention it and I havent read all of it. I plan to do this.

Thanks.

Indeed, smoking is not for all. Yet it's funny though - at least in memory, cause when young, with parents and their friends; society as a whole, it is hard now to think of people not smoking. And even for those that did not smoke, many that were remembered often seemed to be in smoke filled rooms without complaint, along with their kids, even to the point that they themselves had ashtrays in their homes for their guests. However, to be fair though, some non-smokers may have endured this smoking because there was the social/peer aspect. Nonetheless, the local doctor had an astray on his desk, movie theaters, buses, trains and planes all catered to smoking; it was the way it was - almost like it was a different world then, which I guess it was in many ways.

Elohir, there was a super SoTT radio show on the subject of smoking from back in April of this year that you may find interesting or not. The Health & Wellness Show: The Truth about Tobacco and the Benefits of Nicotine

 

[Elohir]

Indeed, smoking is not for all. Yet it's funny though - at least in memory, cause when young, with parents and their friends; society as a whole, it is hard now to think of people not smoking. And even for those that did not smoke, many that were remembered often seemed to be in smoke filled rooms without complaint, along with their kids, even to the point that they themselves had ashtrays in their homes for their guests. However, to be fair though, some non-smokers may have endured this smoking because there was the social/peer aspect. Nonetheless, the local doctor had an astray on his desk, movie theaters, buses, trains and planes all catered to smoking; it was the way it was - almost like it was a different world then, which I guess it was in many ways.

You're right when you say that a lot of people used to smoke and that most of non-smokers didn't complain. Of course as you also said, it was a different world and it was cool and normal to smoke so I think most people prefered to keep a low profile.
Nonetheless, when I was a kid and maybe not yet hypnotized by society habits, my 2 parents, my aunts, uncles and great-parents, most of them smoked and I could not support the smell. It was disguting to me and sometimes it was hard to breath. Then my great-father got a lung cancer and died, my uncle got a throat cancer and he died too, all around us some people died from this kind of cancer linked to smoking by most of doctors.
It was in the middle of 80's. As young ones, I was very curious especially about the fact that so many people smoked despite of the warning messages for health. Was it the taste ? Was there a kind of pleasure in smoking ? My parents were amused and offered me to try a bit and I did, ---> ----> It was horrible It burned my young throat and the taste was so bad, I felt bad and in the same time it was a complete misunderstanding, why do they smoke ??
When I talk with a lot of smokers, they usually tell me they started to smoke to do as everybody and be accepted by a group, friends... Generally, the first time is never a pleasure but the more you smoke the more pleasure you feel, they say. Sometimes, people cannot answer to the question why they started and or they just felt attracted by a new thing, tried and liked it.

Nowadays, smoking is a bad thing for most people and I thought "yes victory ! after all these years !" but I read some material here and on SOTT and it seems that it a bit more complicated than that. But I'm not surprised since sometimes I didn't understand why some old people could live so long while smoking or why some smokers without any problem got big disease just after quitting. Moreover, the more you learn, the more you see that we live in an illusion built and driven by those who know you better than yourself. We're like puppets and believe what we have to believe, what they want us to believe.
So let's stay opened and work...

My 2 (euro) cents

Elohir, there was a super SoTT radio show on the subject of smoking from back in April of this year that you may find interesting or not. The Health & Wellness Show: The Truth about Tobacco and the Benefits of Nicotine

Thank you for the link ;)

 

[trytofly]

Today was my first encounter with a 'neutral pack' of tobacco :
I asked for FAIRGREEN, the only organic tobacco available in France that I know of (growing in Poland and manufactured in Germany).
A dark-green pack was handled to me, with a picture of a woman splitting blood on a white towel, and the name of the brand hardly visible with nothing more to read.
100% tobacco? Organic? How much nicotine or tar etc.? Nothing!
So that you don't even know any more what you are purchasing.
It seems somehow illegal to me, but what can we do about that?
Any lawyers around , or people in the know, to give advices about how to deal with this situation in order to have basic information written on these new packs?..

No indication, it is lamentable, indeed !
We are assaulted with images and inscriptions on the danger of tobacco, but nothing about the harmful composition of the potential additives. As if the danger of tobacco prevailed over that of the additives finally less dangerous to be enumerated.
My favorite organic tobacco, the Yuma (black) is unfortunately no longer made in Germany. It remains the Manitou.
For France, only "Fairgreen" is available. And because their propaganda is never enough, they have been forced to change the name because "fair" has a too positive connotation for tobacco. So the result is "Fergreen". And why not "Feargreen" while they are there ?

 

[Nico]

I will check that Trytofly, but if true it's incredibly unbelievable . Fairgreen was one of my favorite, but in France I have seen american spirit and interval 100% organic. Some shop let the 'colored informational' package in front of the one that they sell which are ponerized. ;)

 

[Goemon_]

The additive content is written on the package, WHEN there are some. That is what I have noticed.

 

[trytofly]

I have seen american spirit and interval 100% organic.

No additive but not organic because of pesticides. :(

The additive content is written on the package, WHEN there are some. That is what I have noticed.

I didn't know. I don't buy tabac with additive. ;)

 

[goyacobol]

I have seen american spirit and interval 100% organic.

No additive but not organic because of pesticides. :(

The additive content is written on the package, WHEN there are some. That is what I have noticed.

I didn't know. I don't buy tabac with additive. ;)

Trytofly,

American Spirit has no-additive blends but also 2 "organic" labeled blends. Are you sure the organic blends use pesticide? I don't see how they can call them organic if they do use pesticides.

 

[trytofly]

American Spirit has no-additive blends but also 2 "organic" labeled blends. Are you sure the organic blends use pesticide? I don't see how they can call them organic if they do use pesticides.

No, sorry ! I didn't know they're in "organic" too. I have never seen they before.

 

[goyacobol]

American Spirit has no-additive blends but also 2 "organic" labeled blends. Are you sure the organic blends use pesticide? I don't see how they can call them organic if they do use pesticides.

No, sorry ! I didn't know they're in "organic" too. I have never seen they before.

Not to worry. I guess you can't find the organic version everywhere. Sometimes it depends on the customers' preference as to what a store will stock. Sometimes I have seen the American Spirit brand but they don't always stock the organic version. They are available in the US so far.

 

[angelburst29]

Have no fear when a smoker lurks near. An interactive advertisement placed in a Stockholm city plaza coughs upon sensing the presence of second-hand smoke.

Swedish Billboard Coughs Near Smokers (VIDEO)
https://sputniknews.com/art_living/201701121049501951-swedish-billboard-cough-near-smokers/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Uj-MMAys4M (0:59 min.)

New Year’s resolutions, guarantee that somewhere a smoker is declaring their intent to drop the habit. While many US pharmaceutical companies seem focused on satisfying shareholders, Swedish pharmacy Apotek Hjärtat has run a campaign in pursuit of the public good.

On Wednesday, President-elect Donald Trump slammed "big pharma" for the troves of lobbyists in Washington DC hired by the life sciences industry to keep prescription drug costs high. Trump said that by improving bidding procedures the US may be able to temper the growth of drug costs.

 

[Kosma]

How do you think air pollution might affect benefits of smoking? Or the opposite - could smoking help neutralizing negative effects of air dust?

I only suppose that if smoking doesn't increase amount of time we spend outdoor on polluted air (not my case) and/or we may smoke indoor, then it should rather be only beneficial.

 

[3DStudent]

How do you think air pollution might affect benefits of smoking? Or the opposite - could smoking help neutralizing negative effects of air dust?

Off the top of my head, I remember reading that the coating that the smoke puts on your lungs actually acts as a buffer for radioactive particles. So it sticks to this layer and it kind of shields your lung tissue from being directly irradiated. So I'd say yes, it does help against radiation in the air.

 

[Keyhole]

How do you think air pollution might affect benefits of smoking? Or the opposite - could smoking help neutralizing negative effects of air dust?

I only suppose that if smoking doesn't increase amount of time we spend outdoor on polluted air (not my case) and/or we may smoke indoor, then it should rather be only beneficial.

There is some research suggesting smoking protects the lung tissue. I would suggest that this protection is provided by the massive increases antioxidant systems such as glutathione, superoxide dismutase, and catalase. Below is taken from this article: https://www.sott.net/article/338885-A-comprehensive-review-of-the-many-health-benefits-of-smoking-Tobacco

There was another study that measured the carcinogenic effects of radon after radioactive uranium ore dust was inhaled by dogs. Paradoxically, unlike the usual fatalities witnessed in other dogs during similar experiments, none of the dogs exposed to tobacco contracted cancer. The author stated that "exposure to cigarette smoke was found to have a mitigating effect on radon daughter-induced tumors". Similarly an experiment on irradiated rats showed that those who smoked and were irradiated showed significantly less inflammation in the lungs than those who did not smoke. In many ways, the smoking group resembled the non-irradiated controls. According to the author "this experimental study further supported the suppressive effect of smoking on radiation-induced pneumo-nitis."

In human research, one analysis showed that the risk of developing lung cancer from asbestos exposure was "significantly increased in non-smokers in six of the studies [reviewed]". Another study suggested that the risk of developing lung cancer from asbestos exposure is approximately three times higher in non-smokers than it is in smokers. After breast cancer radiotherapy treatment, smokers have also been observed to display a "significantly decreased inflammatory reaction i.e., reduced levels of mast cells and lymphocytes, compared to both non-smoking controls and patients". Are these results simply coincidental, or did smoking erect a protective barrier against radiation damage and asbestos?

Research suggests that smoking may also protect against other kinds of environmental pollution, such as exhaust fumes. A recent study on miners showed a strong link between diesel engine exhaust fume exposure and lung cancer. The results demonstrated that miners who were heavily exposed have a three times higher risk of dying from lung cancer compared with miners with low exposure. Whereas for non-smokers, the risk was seven times higher.

 

[Mikey]

The "mental conditioning and subliminal programming to expect" lung cancer is REALLY getting ramped up with these horrible pictures on the packages isn't it?

In some nations, the tobacco packages now have a uniform 'design' across all brands: Dark grey package, big warnings on all possible sides (inside and out), and grotesque pictures. The brand name is printed in uniform font:

Aside from the detrimental psychological/subconscious effects of the packaging, I recently realized that there is something more sinister about it. Manufacturers are no longer allowed to print anything on the package which has a positive connotation, i.e. "Additive Free", "100% Natural" etc. But this has a significant effect: Product laws in many countries require that what is printed on labels must be true. This implies that when nothing is printed on a label, the contents are really left unspecified. Manufacturers who previously printed "Additive Free" on their labels, and were previously forced to make this a true statement, now could add additives without having a chance to notify the consumers. Further, it seems that tobacco manufacturers aren't even allowed to have a website or email address any more.

In short, thanks to the laws that require uniform packaging, 'they' have conveniently created the legal basis to eradicate natural tobacco. This, in a funny twisted way, would make the grotesque images on the packages true: Smoking (with evil enough additives) can create cancer.

:(