Smoking is... good?

[henry]

The Cigarette of the Future?

An electric cigarette? Sounds great! As a lifelong smoker, I'd be willing to give them a try, being well aware of the damage that the tar content in an ordinary cigarette is doing to my lungs. How long does one last for; one smoke; several smokes? And how available are they?

Why are you so sure about the supposed damage done to your lungs by smoking?

Did you know that a person doing an autopsy on someone will be unable to tell a smoker from a non-smoker just by looking at the lungs?

Did you know that researchers have never succeeded in causing lung cancer in animals by subjecting them to cigarette smoke? The only way they can do it is by wiping tar onto their lung tissue.

Smoking depends a lot on the individual. There are people who shouldn't smoke, maybe because they have asthma, maybe because of a predisposition to cancer in their family. But it is not the great public danger that the media and the psychologically deranged anti-smokers would have you believe.

I appreciate what pepperfritz says about the discomfort of sitting in the vicinity of a smoker's second-hand smoke, so perhaps this non-cigarette really is the answer.

As long as I get my nicotine 'fix'!

How much of this discomfort is the result of decades of brain washing about the dangers of smoking? That is, how much of it is psychosomatic?

Fifty years ago, people were tolerant. They never took out fans or made a public display of moral outrage against environmental tobacco smoke -- to avoid the loaded term "second hand smoke". Now it is commonplace.

On Sunday night, I went to see the new Batman movie -- it is great, BTW. Before the show, someone from the theatre came out with a questionnaire and asked who would like to fill it out. He asked what changes people would like to see in the theatre. Did they want a licensed lounge where alcohol could be served. Everyone was excited by that.

So I yelled out:

"Bring back smoking in the theatres!"

and everyone booed. I told them they were all brainwashed. :)

And then enjoyed the movie.

Even smokers have been brainwashed by the antismoking propaganda.

Henry

 

[PepperFritz]

The Cigarette of the Future?

I appreciate what pepperfritz says about the discomfort of sitting in the vicinity of a smoker's second-hand smoke, so perhaps this non-cigarette really is the answer.

How much of this discomfort is the result of decades of brain washing about the dangers of smoking? That is, how much of it is psychosomatic?

Do you have any data to support your theory that the pain and discomfort that asthmatics like myself experience in the presence of cigarette smoke and other airborne chemicals is not physiologically based but, in fact, "psychosomatic"?

 

[anart]

The Cigarette of the Future?

How much of this discomfort is the result of decades of brain washing about the dangers of smoking? That is, how much of it is psychosomatic?

Do you have any data to support your theory that the pain and discomfort that asthmatics like myself experience in the presence of cigarette smoke and other airborne chemicals is not physiologically based but, in fact, "psychosomatic"?

Since you asked (in rather a defensive way) - I have a little evidence, though it is totally anecdotal. Years ago, and for over a decade, when I was really unhealthy generally - weighed forty pounds more than I do now - was eating all the wrong foods, on anti-anxiety/anti-depressant medication, not exercising - I had quite severe asthma - had to use inhalers every day for attacks and the longer term ones for prevention every day. I was told I'd have asthma for the rest of my life.

To be around cigarette smoke actually made me nauseated, gave me a headache and triggered an asthma attack.

Today - I can be in a room filled with smokers and not be affected at all. I no longer have asthma (odd how that works) - I don't use any sort of inhaler at all and am no longer on 'all those meds' in general - on no meds at all. Clearly, more was going on with my body's reaction than the 'evil' cigarette smoke.

I still don't smoke, but am now completely not bothered by it, even in very close proximity and in enclosed places with a lot of smoke.

So, while I do think a LOT of people are 'bothered by cigarrette smoke' for psychological reasons, I also think that some are bothered for physiological reasons - BUT it's not because of the smoke itself - it's due to serious imbalances in the person's body due to many possible factors.

The only evidence I have for this is the life I've lived - and that certainly wouldn't hold up in a court of law - but - since you asked.

 

[PepperFritz]

The Cigarette of the Future?

I ... think that some are bothered for physiological reasons - BUT it's not because of the smoke itself - it's due to serious imbalances in the person's body due to many possible factors. I have a little evidence, though it is totally anecdotal.....

Your experience with asthma and cigarette smoke is very interesting. Glad to hear it cleared up for you. But, as you know, not all conditions are exactly the same and respond to the same kind of approach. I was a "health nut" for many years, very physically fit and healthy, and still suffered from asthma and extreme sensitivity to cigarette smoke and other airborne chemicals. The condition has continued relatively unchanged since childhood, regardless of my "lifestyle". Perhaps adult-onset asthma is different? My asthma is also related to a general inflammatory condition known as "Reiter's Syndrome", which has a genetic basis.

I do think a LOT of people are 'bothered by cigarrette smoke' for psychological reasons.

Well, when you phrase it like that, how could any reasonable person disagree? "Bothered by" is a very vague phrase, and we've all known people who are "bothered by" anything that even slightly irritates or inconveniences them. However, in my case, the symptoms are not vague, they are quite specific and quite uncomfortable, sometimes painful. I highly doubt that there is any psychological or psychosomatic element involved.

Since you asked (in rather a defensive way)

Really? I'm surprised you found my question "defensive". If you read my posts earlier in this thread, you will see that I am not "anti-smoking" and am quite sympathetic to those who benefit from smoking. I also believe that much of the "anti-smoking" information out there is highly inaccurate. I do not demand that others change their behaviour on my account, in most cases I think the onus is on me to avoid situations that will irritate my lungs. Perhaps you jumped to conclusions about my "position" on this (touchy) subject, and therefore read "defensiveness" into a straightforward question?

Re the "smoking good" / "smoking bad" debate: I try to take a balanced, objective, data-based approach myself. To me, to assert that ALL (or even MOST) individuals who are physiologically affected by cigarette smoke in a negative way are just "psychosomatic" seems just as subjective and unfounded as believing that ALL (or even MOST) individuals who smoke will suffer ill effects and/or contract lung cancer. The data does not support either position.

 

[Johnno]

The Cigarette of the Future?

To be around cigarette smoke actually made me nauseated, gave me a headache and triggered an asthma attack.

Today - I can be in a room filled with smokers and not be affected at all. I no longer have asthma (odd how that works) - I don't use any sort of inhaler at all and am no longer on 'all those meds' in general - on no meds at all. Clearly, more was going on with my body's reaction than the 'evil' cigarette smoke.

I used to have asthma and then I started smoking.

 

[bedower]

The Cigarette of the Future?

Henry, thanks for your points, which were very encouraging. Let's see, now. I suppose the reason I'm worried about the tar extract from cigarettes on my lungs is because I've been told to be worried about it, just as you wrote. This is because of the massive anti-smoking campaign put out by the Dept. of Health (Brit), including graphic pictures of what were claimed to be the lungs of smokers; all black and shrivelled. This was supposedly caused by the 'tar extract', so I guess you're right when you hint that I might just be a tad brainwashed by the anti-smoking propaganda.

As for the discomfort of inhaling a smoker's second-hand smoke, I do understand it. Even though I'm a smoker, I really hate it if someone in close proximity lights a cigarette while I am eating, and while I know smokers who can do both at the same time, I find it gross and ill-mannered. Because of this, I could understand and relate to pepperfritz's comment about second-hand smoke.

And I'm glad to live in a country where half the population smokes, as and when they feel like it, and the other half are too polite to complain. Very STS of me! (insert shamefaced grin here)

But how do I get hold of these electric ciggies?

 

[PopHistorian]

The Cigarette of the Future?

I remember stumbling on a YouTube video about this invention about six months ago, and now there are several:
_http://youtube.com/results?search_query=electronic+cigarette&search_type=&aq=f

Hope this isn't a non-sequitur here, but propylene glycol, better known as anti-freeze isn't exactly "non-toxic." Though it is claimed to have low oral toxicity and is an additive in processed foods and deoderant (and the killing agent in beetle traps), I haven't come across any research regarding inhaling it as a vapor.

 

[henry]

The Cigarette of the Future?

Do you have any data to support your theory that the pain and discomfort that asthmatics like myself experience in the presence of cigarette smoke and other airborne chemicals is not physiologically based but, in fact, "psychosomatic"?

I can imagine that for someone with asthma, being around cigarette smoke could be painful. I was not suggesting that it is entirely psychosomatic. I was asking the question.

Don Oakley, in his book Slow Burn, has a long section on how attitudes have changed, what he noticed in his own life. He points out that prior to the campaign against smoking, smokers were considerate of non-smokers, especially those such as yourself with asthma. Smokers and non-smokers could live in harmony because the two sides respected each other. (Of course, there were probably always intolerant people in each camp, but those aside...)

Now, there is little tolerance. Non-smokers have by and large been won over to the anti-smoking camp. Even if they put up with it, they believe the propaganda. People have bought into the idea that there can be smoke-free air, not understanding that in many cases, smoke free air is less healthy than when there were smokers, because smoke was an obvious pollutant, a visible pollutant, and now restaurants and airplanes don't have to change the air so often. That is why we see more and more reports of the unhealthy air quality in commercial jets. They were healthier and cleaner when people were permitted to smoke!

So, I was not talking about people like yourself who are asthmatic, although there certainly could be a psychosomatic part to that. But there are many people who are not asthmatic, and that includes people in my family, who make a big show of horror whenever they see a cigarette being lit up, waving their arms around as if they were struggling for air. There is nothing wrong with them, and, yes, I think in many cases, it is entirely psychosomatic.

 

[henry]

The Cigarette of the Future?

Henry, thanks for your points, which were very encouraging. Let's see, now. I suppose the reason I'm worried about the tar extract from cigarettes on my lungs is because I've been told to be worried about it, just as you wrote. This is because of the massive anti-smoking campaign put out by the Dept. of Health (Brit), including graphic pictures of what were claimed to be the lungs of smokers; all black and shrivelled. This was supposedly caused by the 'tar extract', so I guess you're right when you hint that I might just be a tad brainwashed by the anti-smoking propaganda.

Unless a smoker had died from lung disease that has ravaged the lung, as I said before, it is difficult to tell a smoker's lung from a non-smokers'. Anti-smokers have used pig's lungs in their photos and claimed they are human lungs.

As for the discomfort of inhaling a smoker's second-hand smoke, I do understand it. Even though I'm a smoker, I really hate it if someone in close proximity lights a cigarette while I am eating, and while I know smokers who can do both at the same time, I find it gross and ill-mannered. Because of this, I could understand and relate to pepperfritz's comment about second-hand smoke.

I have been a smoker for most of my life. There are periods when I haven't smoked, and at times I felt overwhelmed by cigarette tobacco, but it has to do with the type of cigarette. Hand-rolled smokes seem to be less offensive than manufactured ones to me. That has to do with the additives that are put into the manufactured ciggies I think, rather than to the tobacco. I am never bothered by cigar or pipe smoke.

 

[Pierre]

The Cigarette of the Future?

propylene glycol, better known as anti-freeze isn't exactly "non-toxic." Though it is claimed to have low oral toxicity and is an additive in processed foods and deoderant (and the killing agent in beetle traps), I haven't come across any research regarding inhaling it as a vapor.

Indeed Glycol isn't exactly non-toxic and its presence in so many products is all the more surprising.

Here is an excerpt from Lilles University website :

Very high levels of inhaled ethylene glycol vapors can irritate the upper respiratory tract. Levels higher than 80 ppm produce intolerable respiratory discomfort and cough. Ethylene glycol’s CNS effects can cause respiratory depression, and metabolic acidosis can result in hyperventilation and respiratory alkalosis. Aspiration of ethylene glycol following ingestion can result in pulmonary edema.

Children may be more vulnerable to gas exposure because of relatively increased minute ventilation per kg and failure to evacuate an area promptly when exposed.

 

[susanrogerssusan]

Pfizer's Dangerous anti-smoking drug Chantix (was "For Woman...")

Female smokers who smoke from an early age run high risks of getting heart disorders. Infact the risks that they face are double as compared to their male counterparts. It has been proved that smoking yields much more adverse effects on women as compared to men. _http://www.chantixhome.com


Admin NOTE: This is obviously spam; the poster has been banned.

 

[Meg]

Anti-smoking disinfo

Female smokers who smoke from an early age run high risks of getting heart disorders. Infact the risks that they face are double as compared to their male counterparts. It has been proved that smoking yields much more adverse effects on women as compared to men. _http://www.chantixhome.com

Some additional info from the Sott page on Chantix. I think I'll take my chances with "heart disorders"

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/151548-Antismoking-Pill-May-Ease-Depression-Or-Cause-Suicidal-Thoughts

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/155711-Chantix-recommended-to-quit-smoking-despite-safety-concerns

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/157279-F-A-A-Bans-Antismoking-Drug-Citing-Side-Effects

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/159685-Mind-over-matter-Anti-smoking-drug-linked-to-suicide

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/148225-Anti-Smoking-Drug-Chantix-May-Pose-Psychiatric-Risks


Worth reading too: http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2007/08/lets-all-light-up.html

edit: link

 

[Al Today]

Re: Anti-smoking disinfo (was "For Woman...")

[quote author=Posted 22 May 2008] Anti-Smoking pill Chantrix from Pfizer Inc. was banned today by the Federal Aviation Administration for its use by pilots and air traffic controlers, after a study showed dangerous side effects. [/quote]
_http://hk.ibtimes.com/articles/20080522/pfizer-039-chantrix.htm

[quote author=April 24, 2008] Depression risks increase with use of anti-addiction pills such as Chantix … "I got so depressed, I didn't want to go anywhere. I didn't want to do anything, and I'm a very high-energy person. It was a depression like I've never experienced in my life," she said. She also had "major, major nightmares. These would wake me up, and I would be absolutely shaking and sweating." [/quote]
_http://www.mydepressionspace.com/chantrix/

[quote author=Friday, February 1, 2008] Anti-smoking Chantrix drug needs stronger warning: FDA … U.S. regulators on Friday said Pfizer Inc's anti-smoking drug Chantix (varenicline) appears increasingly likely to be linked to serious psychiatric behavior, and called for stronger label warnings. The Food and Drug Administration said after an analysis of reports of suicidal thoughts and behavior potentially linked to the medication, it was calling for Pfizer to boost the prominence of current label warnings on the drug. "It appears increasingly likely that there may be an association between Chantix and serious neuropsychiatric symptoms," the FDA's Public Health Advisory said.
[/quote]
_http://www.healthsquare.com/news/news-201826.htm

 

[spyraal]

Re: Anti-smoking disinfo (was "For Woman...")

On the occasion of the conversation started on this thread, this is a very funny video from the Onion Movie. It is about a smoking ban imposed on all America exept.... well, I won't spoil the fun by telling -for those who are not familiar with it. Check the video if you wish on Youtube. It' s quite funny! :D :D

_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8eoEygHyho

 

[Bholanath]

Smoking Ban In India (riiiiight)

Holy crapola, here we go again.
This article is so full of propaganda, lies, you-name-it, I need a barf bag! (looking for sick-bag-smiley)
Not to mention the state of the AIR in Indian cities! Industry says 'nothin to see here, just those darned cigarettes again, move along...'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7645868.stm

Indian ban on smoking in public
By Geeta Pandey
BBC News, Delhi
__________________________
It's a good day to die.