Smoking is... good?

[Niall]

While this cannot really be considered scientific evidence, it is a fact nevertheless.

The oldest people on Earth are all smokers.

According to the World Health Organization and the statisticians of the anti-tobacco cartel, however, these are (or will be) all premature deaths, for the simple reason that they are smokers. Therefore, these individuals did (or will) add to the smoking-related death epidemic figures that the charlatans of the numerous anti-tobacco organizations keep waving in front of politicians, media, and public.

_http://www.forces.org/evidence/hamilton/other/oldest.htm

This list of the oldest humans probs needs updating, but still... coupled with what we know about Andorrans...

 

[Niall]

Smoking Does Not Cause Lung Cancer (According to WHO/CDC Data)*

Journal of Theoretics Vol.1-4

Oct/Nov 1999 Editorial

James P. Siepmann, MD

Yes, it is true, smoking does not cause lung cancer. It is only one of many risk factors for lung cancer. I initially was going to write an article on how the professional literature and publications misuse the language by saying "smoking causes lung cancer"1,2, but the more that I looked into how biased the literature, professional organizations, and the media are, I modified this article to one on trying to put the relationship between smoking and cancer into perspective. (No, I did not get paid off by the tobacco companies, or anything else like that.)

When the tobacco executives testified to Congress that they did not believe that smoking caused cancer, their answers were probably truthful and I agree with that statement. Now, if they were asked if smoking increases the risk of getting lung cancer, then their answer based upon current evidence should have be "yes." But even so, the risk of a smoker getting lung cancer is much less than anyone would suspect. Based upon what the media and anti-tobacco organizations say, one would think that if you smoke, you get lung cancer (a 100% correlation) or at least expect a 50+% occurrence before someone uses the word "cause."

Would you believe that the real number is < 10% (see Appendix A)? Yes, a US white male (USWM) cigarette smoker has an 8% lifetime chance of dying from lung cancer but the USWM nonsmoker also has a 1% chance of dying from lung cancer (see Appendix A). In fact, the data used is biased in the way that it was collected and the actual risk for a smoker is probably less. I personally would not smoke cigarettes and take that risk, nor recommend cigarette smoking to others, but the numbers were less than I had been led to believe. I only did the data on white males because they account for the largest number of lung cancers in the US, but a similar analysis can be done for other groups using the CDC data.

You don't see this type of information being reported, and we hear things like, "if you smoke you will die", but when we actually look at the data, lung cancer accounts for only 2% of the annual deaths worldwide and only 3% in the US.**

When we look at the data over a longer period, such as 50 years as we did here, the lifetime relative risk is only 8 (see Appendix A). That means that even using the biased data that is out there, a USWM smoker has only an 8x more risk of dying from lung cancer than a nonsmoker. It surprised me too because I had always heard numbers like 20-40 times more risk. Statistics that are understandable and make sense to the general public, what a concept!

The process of developing cancer is complex and multifactorial. It involves genetics, the immune system, cellular irritation, DNA alteration, dose and duration of exposure, and much more. Some of the known risk factors include genetics4,5,6, asbestos exposure7, sex8, HIV status9, vitamin deficiency10, diet11,12,13, pollution14 , shipbuilding15 and even just plain old being lazy.16 When some of these factors are combined they can have a synergistic effect17, but none of these risk factors are directly and independently responsible for "causing" lung cancer!

Look in any dictionary and you will find something like, "anything producing an effect or result."18 At what level of occurrence would you feel comfortable saying that X "causes" Y? For myself and most scientists, we would require Y to occur at least 50% of the time. Yet the media would have you believe that X causes Y when it actually occurs less than 10% of the time.

As ludicrous as that is, the medical and lay press is littered with such pabulum and gobbledygook. Even as web literate physician, it took me over 50 hours of internet time to find enough raw data to write this article. I went through thousands of abstracts and numerous articles, only to find two articles that even questioned the degree of correlation between smoking and lung cancer (British lung cancer rates do not correlating to smoking rates)19,20 and another two articles which questioned the link between second hand smoke (passive smoking) and lung cancer.21,22 Everywhere I looked, the information was hidden in terms like "odds ratio," "relative risk," or "annualized mortality rate." Most doctors probably could not accurately define and interpret them all these terms accurately, let alone someone outside the medical profession. The public relies on the media to interpret this morass of data, but instead they are given politically correct and biased views.

If they would say that smoking increases the incidence of lung cancer or that smoking is a risk factor in the development of lung cancer, then I would agree. The purpose of this article is to emphasize the need to use language appropriately in both the medical and scientific literature (the media, as a whole, may be a lost cause).

Everything in life has risk; just going to work each day has risk. Are we supposed to live our lives in bed, hiding under the blanket in case a tornado should come into our bedroom? We in science, have a duty to give the public accurate information and then let them decide for themselves what risk is appropriate. To do otherwise is a subtle imposition of our biases on the populace.

We must embrace Theoretics as a discipline that strives to bring objectivity and logic back into science. Every article/study has some bias in it, the goal is to minimize such biases and present the facts in a comprehensible and logical manner. Unfortunately, most scientists have never taken a course in logic, and I'm sure that English class was not their favorite. Theoretics is a field of science which focuses on the use of logic and appropriate language in order to develop and communicate scientifically credible theories and ideas which will then have experimental implications. As someone whom I respect says, "Words mean things." Let us use language and logic appropriately in our research and in the way that we communicate information.

* * * * *

Yes, smoking is bad for you, but so is fast-food hamburgers, driving, and so on. We must weigh the risk and benefits of the behavior both as a society and as an individual based on unbiased information. Be warned though, that a society that attempts to remove all risk terminates individual liberty and will ultimately perish. Let us be logical in our endeavors and true in our pursuit of knowledge. Instead of fearful waiting for lung cancer to get me (because the media and much of the medical literature has falsely told me that smoking causes lung cancer), I can enjoy my occasional cigar even more now...now that I know the whole story.

* * * * *

The Untold Facts of Smoking (Yes, there is bias in science)

or

"I feel like the Fox Network" (a bastion of truth in a sea of liberalism)

1. USWM smokers have a lifetime relative risk of dying from lung cancer of only 8 (not the 20 or more that is based on an annual death rate and therefore virtually useless).
2. No study has ever shown that casual cigar smoker (<5 cigars/wk, not inhaled) has an increased incidence of lung cancer.
3. Lung cancer is not in even in the top 5 causes of death, it is only #9.**
4. All cancers combined account for only 13% of all annual deaths and lung cancer only 2%.**
5. Occasional cigarette use (<1 pk/wk) has never been shown to be a risk factor in lung cancer.
6. Certain types of pollution are more dangerous than second hand smoke.3
7. Second hand smoke has never been shown to be a causative factor in lung cancer.
8. A WHO study did not show that passive (second hand) smoke statistically increased the risk of getting lung cancer.
9. No study has shown that second hand smoke exposure during childhood increases their risk of getting lung cancer.
10. In one study they couldn't even cause lung cancer in mice after exposing them to cigarette smoke for a long time.23
11. If everyone in the world stopped smoking 50 years ago, the premature death rate would still be well over 80% of what it is today.1 (But I thought that smoking was the major cause of preventable death...hmmm.)

*This article was revised after errors in the data and calculations were noticed by Charles Rotter, Curtis Cameron and Jesse V. Silverman. This is the corrected version. A special thanks to both.

**WHO data of member countries

Keywords: lung cancer, mortality, tobacco, smoking, Theoretics, language, WHO, cigarette, cigar, logic.



References (I back up my statements with facts, will those who respond do the same?)

1. Articles:

* Pisani P, Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Estimates of the worldwide mortality from 25 cancers in 1990, Int J Cancer 1999 Sep 24;83(1):18-29; "Tobacco smoking and chewing are almost certainly the major preventable causes of cancer today."
* American Thoracic Society, Cigarette smoking and health.. , Am J Respir Crit Care Med; 153(2):861-5 1996; "Cigarette smoking remains the primary cause of preventable death and morbidity in the United States."
* Nordlund LA, Trends in smoking habits and lung cancer in Sweden, Eur J Cancer Prev 1998 Apr;7(2):109-16; "Tobacco smoking is the most important cause of lung cancer and accounts for about 80-90% of all cases of lung cancer among men and about 50-80% among women."
* JAMA 1997;278:1505-1508; "The chief cause of death included lung cancer, esophageal cancer and liver cancer. The death rate was higher for those who started smoking before age 25. If current smoking patterns persist, tobacco will eventually cause more than two million deaths each year in China."
* JAMA 1997;278:1500-1504; "We have demonstrated that smoking is a major cause of death in China...."
* Hecht SS hecht002@tc.umn.edu, Tobacco smoke carcinogens and lung cancer, J Natl Cancer Inst 1999 Jul 21;91(14):1194-210; "The complexity of tobacco smoke leads to some confusion about the mechanisms by which it causes lung cancer."
* Sarna L, Prevention: Tobacco control and cancer nursing, Cancer Nurs 1999 Feb;22(1):21-8; "In the next century, tobacco will become the number-one cause of preventable death throughout the world, resulting in half a billion deaths."
* Liu BQ, Peto R, Chen ZM, Boreham J, Wu YP, Li JY, Campbell TC, Chen JS, Emerging tobacco hazards in China: 1. Retrospective proportional mortality study of one million deaths, BMJ 1998 Nov 21;317(7170):1411-22; "If current smoking uptake rates persist in China (where about two thirds of men but few women become smokers) tobacco will kill about 100 million...."
* Nordlund LA Trends in smoking habits and lung cancer in Sweden. Eur J Cancer Prev 1998 Apr;7(2):109-16; "Tobacco smoking is the most important cause of lung cancer and accounts for about 80-90% of all cases of lung cancer among men and about 50-80% among women."
* Skurnik Y, Shoenfeld Y Health effects of cigarette smoking, Clin Dermatol 1998 Sep-Oct;16(5):545-56 "Cigarette smoking, the chief preventable cause of illness and death in the industrialized nations."

2. Websites:

* JAMA Website: http://www.ama-assn.org/sci-pubs/sci-news/1996/snr0424.htm [link no longer active as of 2004]; "Yet huge obstacles remain in our path, and new roadblocks are being erected continuously," writes Ronald M. Davis, M.D., director of the Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Mich., in urging a review of the effort against "the most important preventable cause of death in our society."
* JAMA Website: http://www.ama-assn.org/sci-pubs/sci-news/1997/snr1203.htm#joc6d99 [link no longer active as of 2004]; "According to the authors, tobacco use has been cited as the chief avoidable cause of death in the U.S., responsible for more than 420,000 deaths annually ...."
* JAMA Website: http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v281n2/ffull/jwm80010-2.html [link no longer active as of 2004]; "The researchers reported that deaths caused by tobacco...."

3. The World Health Report 1999, chapter 5 and Statistical Annex and CDC data (http://www.cdc.gov/scientific.htm).

4.Mutat Res 1998 Feb 26;398(1-2):43-54 Association of the NAT1*10 genotype with increased chromosome aberrations and higher lung cancer risk in cigarette smokers. Abdel-Rahman SZ, El-Zein RA, Z

5. Schwartz AG, Rothrock M, Yang P, Swanson GM, "Increased cancer risk among relatives of nonsmoking lung cancer cases," Genet Epidemiol 1999;17(1):1-15

6. Amos CI, Xu W, Spitz MR, Is there a genetic basis for lung cancer susceptibility?, Recent Results Cancer Res 1999;151:3-12

7. Silica, asbestos, man-made mineral fibers, and cancer. Author Steenland K; Stayner L Cancer Causes Control, 8(3):491-503 1997 May

8. Lam S, leRiche JC, Zheng Y, Coldman A, MacAulay C, Hawk E, Kelloff G, Gazdar AF, Sex-related differences in bronchial epithelial changes associated with tobacco smoking, J Natl Cancer Inst 1999 Apr 21;91(8):691-6

9. Ignacio I. Wistuba, MD, Comparison of Molecular Changes in Lung Cancers in HIV-Positive and HIV-Indeterminate Subjects, JAMAVol. 279, pp. 1554-1559, May 20, 1998

10. Kumagai Y, Pi JB, Lee S, Sun GF, Yamanushi T, Sagai M, Shimojo N, Serum antioxidant vitamins and risk of lung and stomach cancers in Shenyang, Cancer Lett 1998 Jul 17;129(2):145-9 China.

11. Nyberg F, et al., Dietary factors and risk of lung cancer in never-smokers, Int J Cancer 1998 Nov 9;78(4):430-6

12. Sinha R, Kulldorff M, Curtin J, Brown CC, Alavanja MC, Swanson CA, "Fried, well-done red meat and risk of lung cancer in women." Cancer Causes Control 1998 Dec;9(6):621-30.

13. Young KJ, Lee PN, Statistics and Computing Ltd, Surrey, UK. Intervention studies on cancer, Eur J Cancer Prev 1999 Apr;8(2):91-103

14. Long-term inhalable particles and other air pollutants related to mortality in nonsmokers.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1999 Feb;159(2):373-82.

15. Blot WJ, Fraumeni JF, Lung Cancer Mortality in the US: Shipyard Correlations Source, Ann N Y Acad Sci; 330:313-315 1979 UI: 80659437

16. Lee IM, Sesso HD, Paffenbarger RS Jr, Physical activity and risk of lung cancer. Int J Epidemiol 1999 Aug;28(4):620-5

17. Kamp DW, Greenberger MJ, Sbalchierro JS, Preusen SE, Weitzman SA, Cigarette smoke augments asbestos-induced alveolar epithelial cell injury: role of free radicals, Free Radic Biol Med 1998 Oct;25(6):728-39

18. The Complete Reference Collection, 1996-9, Compton's.

19. Lee PN, Forey BA, Trends in cigarette consumption cannot fully explain trends in British lung cancer rates, J Epidemiol Community Health; 52(2):82-92 1998

20. Pandey M, Mathew A, Nair MK, Global perspective of tobacco habits and lung cancer: a lesson for third world countries. Eur J Cancer Prev 1999 Aug;8(4):271-9

21. Jahn O, [Passive smoking, a risk factor for lung carcinoma?], Wien Klin Wochenschr; 108(18):570-3 1996

22. Nilsson R, Environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer: a reappraisal, Ecotoxicol Environ Saf; 34(1):2-17 1996

23. Finch GL, Nikula KJ, Belinsky SA, Barr EB, Stoner GD, Lechner JF, Failure of cigarette smoke to induce or promote lung cancer in the A/J mouse, Cancer Lett; 99(2):161-7 1996

Tables included in original article

_http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Editorial%201-4.html

 

[Niall]

The Carbon Monoxide Paradox

Neil Sherman

WEDNESDAY, May 9 (HealthScout)

A killer gas may actually be a lifesaver, surprising research in mice reveals.

Researchers discovered that very low levels of carbon monoxide helped mice whose lungs had been starved of blood and oxygen to stave off death. The startling discovery could possibly lead to the use of carbon monoxide -- at the right concentrations -- to help stroke and heart attack victims.

"When you give very low levels of carbon monoxide, it actually causes the blood vessels to change some of their properties so that clots dissolve more readily," says lead author Dr. David Pinsky, an associate professor of medicine at Columbia University.

"During an emergency -- like a heart attack or stroke or severe infections like sepsis -- clots form rapidly in small vessels, choking off blood flow. In this case, small doses of carbon monoxide turn off the protein which inhibits clot dissolution, therefore allowing clots to dissolve where they wouldn't," he adds.

Carbon monoxide, a colorless, odorless gas, is usually toxic. Normally a by-product of the incomplete combustion of fuels, it enters the bloodstream after being inhaled and then mimics the behavior of oxygen without providing its benefits. The gas is transported through the body, gradually starving the body's organs. This increases the body's need for oxygen, and the heart rate increases, which brings on poisoning at a more rapid pace.

As poisoning continues, the victim can suffer breathing difficulties, heart damage, brain damage and coma. Without fresh air, the victim can die.

Carbon monoxide's close resemblance to nitric oxide alerted Pinsky and his colleagues to its potential.

"Nitric oxide has very important biological functions within blood vessels -- it keeps blow flowing, keeps white cells from accumulating, and it keeps blood vessels from dilating," Pinsky explains. "Carbon monoxide can do some of the same things as nitric oxide, because they both bind to molecules of iron in the blood called heme proteins. And both activate an enzyme which signals cells to turn on and turn off various cell functions."

"Our hypothesis is that since nitric oxide and carbon monoxide do similar things, if nitric oxide is unavailable to do these normalizing routines in blood vessels, carbon monoxide might take over some of the same functions," Pinsky says.

To see if carbon monoxide worked like nitric oxide, Pinsky studied normal mice as well as mice that were unable to produce carbon monoxide in reaction to stress.

"Under stressful situations, the body reacts by producing carbon monoxide. For a long time it was thought to be an incidental by-product of cell death," he says.

Pinsky prevented blood flow to the right lungs of the mice for 30 minutes and then gave them very low levels of carbon monoxide.

None of the normal mice survived. But 50 percent of the mice unable to produce carbon monoxide recovered. Carbon monoxide's ability to reverse clot development prevented the lung tissue from dying, allowing the mice to survive, Pinsky says.

The findings were published in the May issue of Nature Medicine.

So does that mean carbon monoxide could be used to treat heart attack and stroke victims?

"With a lot of cautionary notes and a plea for further testing, perhaps," Pinsky responds. "So under a heart attack or stroke or sepsis or organ transplantation, the right amounts of carbon monoxide might be beneficial. But we are not sure yet -- it must be tested."

It's not completely surprising that carbon monoxide may prove to be a therapeutic agent, according to Christoph Thiemermann of the William Harvey Research Institute in London. "The words carbon monoxide will for many of us immediately bring to mind the images of air pollution, of cigarette smoke, of suicides by inhalation of car exhaust fumes in closed garages," Thiemermann writes in an editorial accompanying Pinksy's article.

"Recently nitric oxide has been elevated from a common air pollutant . . . to an [internal] second messenger of utmost physiological importance," Thiemermann explains. "Therefore, many of us may not be entirely surprised to learn that carbon monoxide can paradoxically rescue the lung from [cardiovascular blockage] injury."

Whether carbon monoxide will become a treatment for stroke is still up for grabs, Thiemermann adds. "One could also argue that the use of [blood thinners] might be safer and just as effective as carbon monoxide inhalation in reducing [blood clot] deposition in the lung."

What To Do

This research is very preliminary. For all practical purposes, the gas remains a killer, so don't throw out your carbon monoxide detector just yet. (You do have a detector, don't you?)

_http://www.data-yard.net/10b/cm.htm

I'm reminded of this from Laura's blog:

Let's All Light Up!

Study finds smoking wards off Parkinson's disease

There is more evidence to back up a long-standing theory that smokers are less likely to develop Parkinson's disease than people who do not use tobacco products, researchers reported on Monday. ... What would cause such a preventive effect is not well understood, said the report in the Archives of Neurology, but studies on test animals suggested two possibilities.

One is that carbon monoxide or other agents in tobacco smoke exert a protective effect and promote survival of brain neurons that produce dopamine, which allows muscles to move properly and is lacking in Parkinson's cases.

Cigarettes may also somehow prevent the development of toxic substances that interfere with proper neurological functioning.

Gee, that reference to carbon monoxide reminds me of something mentioned by psychologist, Andrzej Lobaczewski:

Persons less distinctly inclined in the pathocratic direction include those affected by some states caused by the toxic activities of certain substances such as ether, carbon monoxide, and possibly some endotoxins, under the condition that this occurred in childhood. (Political Ponerology)

 

[Laura]

Kniall, I also found your post in the Anti-Candida thread fascinating and thought it should be included here:

Well, I didn't find any other mention of MMS on Mercola's website, but I found an interesting post suggesting a connection between Candida and the anti-smoking fervour! Mind you, he doesn't substantiate his claim much...

As for proper eating, kefir grains may be one of the greatest miracles to man kind, and is hands down the most important aspect to a healthy diet. The history of Kefir says that god just handed the grains to mankind from the sky, and could be "Manna" from the bible. Science cannot disprove the "creationism" of kefir, because kefir grains do not grow without human care. The prophet Muhammad is said to have never left his house without kefir, he is reported to have lived 96 years. Every European foreign exchange student I have met recognizes my kefir grains immediately. The difference I have seen between the European students and my fellow American students is that the European students look like supermodels. The American students, if they have not already started gaining weight, are certainly plagued by acne. Even the girls I knew to be damn good looking back in highschool are getting fat now at my age. I am 23. By the age of 40 they will have turned into my mother (obese). I saw highschool year book photos of my mother and her sister, they were the best looking girls in the entire school. My mother is obese, my aunt is overweight. I know well that a person who consumes hefty amounts of kefir daily will literally become superhuman.

Superhuman people enjoy tobacco, the reason for this is that the Candida infection causes allergies to tobacco smoke, first and second hand. Doctors speculate that 60-80% of the American population suffer from Candida. I have once suffered from Candida and had loathed the smell of tobacco smoke, it seemed downright nasty, I was convinced smoking is bad. Now that I am free of Candida I love the smell of tobacco smoke, even if it is from nasty chemical ridden cigarettes like Newport and Marlboro, they still smell damn good, though I would never smoke such nasty things. I smoke roughly 2 packs a day of natural tobacco. I understand well that I absorb vitamin B3 from nicotine, all of the "health benefits" of Vitamin B3 are the "Health Consequences" of smoking (supressed appetite, regulated nervous system, faster metabolism, detoxification of the blood cappilaries.) I understand that people with Candida suffer allergies to tobacco smoke because the smoke itself is cleaning them of the Candida, creating a detox reaction. According to Dr. Saleh Naser, nicotine is anti-viral, I understand that vitamin B3 is both anti-viral and anti-fungal. They say that nicotine even cures Tuberculosis:

12. Shocker: Villain ‘Nicotine’ slays TB

_http://www.data-yard.net/10c/nicotine.htm

Nicotine sure is a villain, it has corrupted me so much as to commense intensely long hours of seeking the truth. I think you mentioned Carbon Monoxide? There is a little something mentioned of it here,

13. The Carbon Monoxide Paradox

_http://www.data-yard.net/10b/cm.htm

Something about Carbon Monoxide making you super-human, err immune to disease, err prevents strokes and heart-attacks. Some more interesting evidences here...

14. Parkinson’s Disease is associated with non-smoking.

_http://www.forces.org/evidence/carol/carol36.htm


15. Alzheimer’s Disease is associated with non-smoking.

_http://www.forces.org/evidence/carol/carol16.htm

These could be a few of the major points for smoking, so that you don't end up convulsing, mentally retarded, pissing down the leg of your pants that you did not even put on yourself.

_http://v.mercola.com/blogs/public_blog/do-you-know-of-any-healthy-fraud-and-deceptions-that-need-to-be-exposed--4247.aspx

[From about a quarter of the way down the page]

 

[seek10]

new to smoking :what are the healthy guidelines.

I am planning to start smoking for the first time in this 40 yrs life. being O+ type, I think it is good and after looking at the forum content I thought I will start with Natural spirit organic and already found the place where I can get it.

Moderation is suggested . C's suggestion around the nicotine need seems to be little high at this point for me. Any way, C's suggestion is contextual to the person/persons who are at the particular circumstances in their interaction.

Being not good at controlling my machine/centers ( particularly facing emotional center ), I want to be cautious and don't want another addiction to struggle with . How much to start with is the question that bugging me. is 1 or 2 cigarette's a day is good to start with ?.

Are there any suggestions on how to identify and stop the addiction , before it even starts.

 

[Gimpy]

Re: new to smoking :what are the healthy guidelines.

I am planning to start smoking for the first time in this 40 yrs life. being O+ type, I think it is good and after looking at the forum content I thought I will start with Natural spirit organic and already found the place where I can get it.

Moderation is suggested . C's suggestion around the nicotine need seems to be little high at this point for me. Any way, C's suggestion is contextual to the person/persons who are at the particular circumstances in their interaction.

Being not good at controlling my machine/centers ( particularly facing emotional center ), I want to be cautious and don't want another addiction to struggle with . How much to start with is the question that bugging me. is 1 or 2 cigarette's a day is good to start with ?.

Are there any suggestions on how to identify and stop the addiction , before it even starts.

Well, I'd treat it like any kind of medicine or herb for health: start with one and see how you feel. Keep a chart on how you feel, when you take it etc.

Logging it will give you an idea when/if to stop. Whenever I add a new herb or supplement of any kind that's what I like to do. The only caution I can mention is about driving. Until you know if it makes you dizzy or not, you might want to smoke at home and not while driving. :)

 

[mkrnhr]

Re: new to smoking :what are the healthy guidelines.

Hi, seek 10
You may give it a try, and if you don't like it, forget it and don't try to convince yourself that you need it or that you like it. Most of smoking addiction comes from emotional association IMHO. If you observe compulsive smokers, you see that they smoke when they feel good, when they feel bad, when they feel nervous, angry... Don't smoke because something, smoke only when you decide you want to smoke. OSIT

 

[seek10]

Re: new to smoking :what are the healthy guidelines.

Hi, seek 10
You may give it a try, and if you don't like it, forget it and don't try to convince yourself that you need it or that you like it. Most of smoking addiction comes from emotional association IMHO. If you observe compulsive smokers, you see that they smoke when they feel good, when they feel bad, when they feel nervous, angry... Don't smoke because something, smoke only when you decide you want to smoke. OSIT

thank you Gimpy and mkrnhr for the suggestions. Interesting to see , how it goes.

 

[Joe]

Re: new to smoking :what are the healthy guidelines.

If I were you I would also try rolling your own, buy some tobacco and some papers (the thinner papers the better). It's very likely that most of the addiction to cigarettes is to the standard manufactured brands which contain any number of over 200 additives.

Just take it slow and let your body decide how much you need.

 

[dant]

Re: new to smoking :what are the healthy guidelines.

There are several other postings regarding smoking.
Try using the search feature if you hadn't already.

I noticed that when I started back after several years
of absence, taking in too much nicotine can cause
sensory overload and that is when I knew I had to
back off and let my system acclimate slowly. I was
getting things like vertigo, the urge to throw up, etc.
so my body was "telling me something" ;)

So I guess like many things, moderation is the key.

Also, I have posted that I'd like to grow my own
tobacco because as it stands, there are "forces"
that are trying to force a heavy tax to otherwise
force smokers to give up "their nasty habits".

In the US(S)A, oBAMa has raised the taxes severely
on "roll your own tobacco", but backed off when the
"elite" said "hands off!" to cigars and pipe tobacco
but raised it modestly to "30 cents/ounce".

Another thought I had was to contact a local farmer
to grow organic tobacco for myself; a coop perhaps,
with aims to cut down the cost of tobacco and just
maybe, be exempt from taxation since I am "renting"
a "plot" of land and paying "services (labor)" to grow
the plant?

FWIW,
Dan

 

[Renaissance]

Re: new to smoking :what are the healthy guidelines.

There are several other postings regarding smoking.
Try using the search feature if you hadn't already.

I noticed that when I started back after several years
of absence, taking in too much nicotine can cause
sensory overload and that is when I knew I had to
back off and let my system acclimate slowly. I was
getting things like vertigo, the urge to throw up, etc.
so my body was "telling me something" ;)

So I guess like many things, moderation is the key.

It's also possible that your body was feeling a detox from tobacco's effect on candida. The following post is in the candida thread as well as the 'smoking is good for you' thread:

Well, I didn't find any other mention of MMS on Mercola's website, but I found an interesting post suggesting a connection between Candida and the anti-smoking fervour! Mind you, he doesn't substantiate his claim much...

As for proper eating, kefir grains may be one of the greatest miracles to man kind, and is hands down the most important aspect to a healthy diet. The history of Kefir says that god just handed the grains to mankind from the sky, and could be "Manna" from the bible. Science cannot disprove the "creationism" of kefir, because kefir grains do not grow without human care. The prophet Muhammad is said to have never left his house without kefir, he is reported to have lived 96 years. Every European foreign exchange student I have met recognizes my kefir grains immediately. The difference I have seen between the European students and my fellow American students is that the European students look like supermodels. The American students, if they have not already started gaining weight, are certainly plagued by acne. Even the girls I knew to be damn good looking back in highschool are getting fat now at my age. I am 23. By the age of 40 they will have turned into my mother (obese). I saw highschool year book photos of my mother and her sister, they were the best looking girls in the entire school. My mother is obese, my aunt is overweight. I know well that a person who consumes hefty amounts of kefir daily will literally become superhuman.

Superhuman people enjoy tobacco, the reason for this is that the Candida infection causes allergies to tobacco smoke, first and second hand. Doctors speculate that 60-80% of the American population suffer from Candida. I have once suffered from Candida and had loathed the smell of tobacco smoke, it seemed downright nasty, I was convinced smoking is bad. Now that I am free of Candida I love the smell of tobacco smoke, even if it is from nasty chemical ridden cigarettes like Newport and Marlboro, they still smell damn good, though I would never smoke such nasty things. I smoke roughly 2 packs a day of natural tobacco. I understand well that I absorb vitamin B3 from nicotine, all of the "health benefits" of Vitamin B3 are the "Health Consequences" of smoking (supressed appetite, regulated nervous system, faster metabolism, detoxification of the blood cappilaries.) I understand that people with Candida suffer allergies to tobacco smoke because the smoke itself is cleaning them of the Candida, creating a detox reaction. According to Dr. Saleh Naser, nicotine is anti-viral, I understand that vitamin B3 is both anti-viral and anti-fungal. They say that nicotine even cures Tuberculosis:

12. Shocker: Villain ‘Nicotine’ slays TB

_http://www.data-yard.net/10c/nicotine.htm

Nicotine sure is a villain, it has corrupted me so much as to commense intensely long hours of seeking the truth. I think you mentioned Carbon Monoxide? There is a little something mentioned of it here,

13. The Carbon Monoxide Paradox

_http://www.data-yard.net/10b/cm.htm

Something about Carbon Monoxide making you super-human, err immune to disease, err prevents strokes and heart-attacks. Some more interesting evidences here...

14. Parkinson’s Disease is associated with non-smoking.

_http://www.forces.org/evidence/carol/carol36.htm


15. Alzheimer’s Disease is associated with non-smoking.

_http://www.forces.org/evidence/carol/carol16.htm

These could be a few of the major points for smoking, so that you don't end up convulsing, mentally retarded, pissing down the leg of your pants that you did not even put on yourself.

_http://v.mercola.com/blogs/public_blog/do-you-know-of-any-healthy-fraud-and-deceptions-that-need-to-be-exposed--4247.aspx

[From about a quarter of the way down the page]

Candida really is turning out to be 'their' special little helper on the 'inside'

Win the battle and you can look forward to a more enjoyable smoke. Or discover this higher-being food for the first time. Am I allowed to say that?!

 

[theos]

Re: new to smoking :what are the healthy guidelines.

Hi Seek10,

I started smoking natural tobacco (rolled myself into filtered tubes using a machine) about two months ago. I dabbled a bit when I was younger but pretty much stopped after getting pleurisy after smoking conventional cigs for about two weeks.
When I started up recently, I would get extremely dizzy. Not only did I just smoke at home, I made sure I was sitting down. I seem to have leveled off at 3-6 cigs daily. I've smoked as many as 10 in one day which was too much for me.
I haven't noticed any ill effects like cough or windedness. And I seem to be a bit sharper ...perhaps less forgetful and able to make faster associations between concepts that I've read. I can't really pinpoint the exact difference. The experiment continues, however. Dare I say I find smoking enjoyable?

Let us know how it goes, Seek10.

 

[seek10]

Re: new to smoking :what are the healthy guidelines.

If I were you I would also try rolling your own, buy some tobacco and some papers (the thinner papers the better). It's very likely that most of the addiction to cigarettes is to the standard manufactured brands which contain any number of over 200 additives.

Just take it slow and let your body decide how much you need.

soon, I want to prepare my own rolled up cigarette's , but I don't want to start with my own. Soon I will switch to my own. probably smoking "Natural spirit organic " reduces the bad effects of additive poisons, though bud may still have some poisons. I want to start one at a time to know the effect

 

[RyanX]

Re: new to smoking :what are the healthy guidelines.

I too have recently taken up smoking tobacco. Prior to this the most tobacco I've smoked is maybe a couple of cigarettes in my 29 year existence.

I bought a wooden pipe and am currently trying to master the art of smoking from one and keeping it lit - which I've discovered isn't always easy (btw, if anybody has any tips, let me know!). I also have some loose-leaf mullein and lobelia that I've added to the blend as a filler. I bought these originally for other reasons when I was trying to make my own cough syrup for use on cold/flu symptoms. I've read that these are decent smoking herbs and some even claim they are beneficial to the lungs even when smoked. I also decided on the American Spirit brand tobacco (medium shag), which seems to be one of the cleaner brands, osit.

So far I've limited myself to one bowl-full per day. I usually wait until the evening hours and sit outside on the patio with the pipe. This also helps me work a little star gazing into the evening as well. I found myself getting dizzy at first, so I had to slow it down to 1/2 a bowl per night. I feel my body is better acclimated now and I can usually tolerate a full pipe.

This change has also coincided with a number of other changes in my life. One of which is a divorce situation I find myself in. I've found that smoking has given me better clarity during this time and has allowed me to better watch my emotional center, which hasn't always been easy for me to do. I can't say that it has changed me or made me a better person, but it seems to clear my mind enough to make self observation less tenuous.

I haven't experimented yet with rolling papers, so I can't offer any advise there. I am concerned about the possibility of addiction, so the pipe offers a little bit of a barrier to keep me from getting carried away.

So far, so good!

 

[Pierre]

Re: new to smoking :what are the healthy guidelines.

I bought a wooden pipe and am currently trying to master the art of smoking from one and keeping it lit - which I've discovered isn't always easy (btw, if anybody has any tips, let me know!).

Hi RyanX,

Here are 3 tips that might help keeping you pipe lit :
- dry your tobacco by keeping the bag open (but it might get less tasty)
- use a pipe with a tick air conduit (between your mouth and the tobacco)
- lit your pipe in two steps : first lit, then pack the tobacco (not too much), then lit your pipe again (while packing the fire usually dies).

Have a good smoke!