Smoking is... good?

[abstract]

Re: Lung cancer in non-smokers?

smoking reduces the levels of estrogens.

Psyche, i'm curious, would this also apply to the gender-bender chemicals found in plastic? The xenogestrins? (if i am spelling that correctly)

 

[Gaby]

Re: Lung cancer in non-smokers?

I think it applies also for exogenous sources (plastics, pesticides, etc.) But it is just a thought. The anti-estrogen effect of smoking is believed to be caused by multiple biological factors.

 

[GRiM]

Re: Lung cancer in non-smokers?

(...)
Then there is the interesting notion that the Cassiopaeans brought up that people are reading the surgeon general's warning on packs of cigarettes and listening to culturally accepted statements about smoking causing cancer, and that this creates the belief that one is going to get cancer, thus causing the cancer to manifest in the individual. What does that look like on an X-ray when compared with someone who got cancer out of the blue?

10-28-94
Q: (L) Is smoking detrimental to any of our bodies?
A: Not if mild. Not if mind is in right mode.
Q: (L) Does smoking enhance psychic abilities?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Is it true that the government program to stamp out smoking is inspired by the Lizzies?
A: Yes because they know it may heighten psychic abilities.
Q: (L) What is causing the lung cancer they are attributing to smoking?
A: Mental conditioning and subliminal programming to expect it.
Q: (L) So, it only happens if you are convinced that it can and must happen?
A: Correct.
Q: (L) Is there any particular brand of cigarettes to smoke?
A: No.

Indeed, here is the latest version of this. I don't understand how the placebo effect can be such a obvious reality and hypnosis being quite well understood by mainstream, and yet they can't see how this might be a bad idea.
I really feel for that 20% of population who are very susceptible to suggestions.

Australian smokers get a rude shock in Australia,
if the smoking doesn't kill, the new cigarette packets might.

By Marina Kamenev — Special to GlobalPost
Published: May 10, 2010 07:08 ET

SYDNEY, Australia — Australia's smokers will be finding it even tougher to light up after a raft of tough new government legislation further tightened the country's already stringent restrictions on smoking.

On April 29, the Australian government — virtually overnight — announced a 25 percent hike in cigarette tax.

And in a world first, Australia has set out plans to become the first country to have plain cigarette packaging as of July 1, 2012. Cigarette packs will carry no logos, color or font variation. Instead the pack will bear the brand name and a graphic photo depicting the gruesome consequences of smoking.

"The new branding for cigarettes will be the most hard-line regime in the world and cigarette companies will hate it," Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said in a press conference.

The measure has the backing of the World Health Organization. WHO claims that packets convey a brand image such as toughness, which appeals to teenagers who are still forming their identity.

As Rudd predicted, tobacco companies responded almost immediately.

Imperial Tobacco Australia was concerned about what would happen to its brand recognition: "Introducing plain packaging just takes away the ability of a consumer to identify our brand from another brand and that's of value to us," Cathie Keogh, the brand’s spokesperson told ABC News. Keogh said Imperial Tobacco were considering its legal options. "It really affects the value of our business as a commercial enterprise and we will fight to support protecting our international property rights."

British American Tobacco Australia said it would also fight the plain-package ruling. “It commodifies our brand,” said spokesperson Louise Warburton. “It will mean that the only differentiation between types of cigarettes is price, and it will drive down prices.” Warburton believes the move will also inspire counterfeit products. “Our industry is already losing 12 percent of the market share to knock-off products,” said Warburton. “It costs taxpayers AU $600 million ($532 million) annually.”

Australian Health Minister Nicola Roxon told ABC News the legislation would be written to withstand a lawsuit by the tobacco industry. "We won't be put off by the fact that tobacco companies won't like this action.”

Smoking is the most preventable cause of death and disease in Australia, according to the federal government. Every year, 15,000 Australians die as a result of the habit. In 2007, 16.6 percent of Australians over the age of 14 were smokers and the government wants the rate to drop to 10 percent by 2018. Rudd plans to generate 5 billion Australian dollars ($4.4 billion) in the next four years from cigarette taxes and wants to use this money to fund overhauls of hospitals and the health system.

Health advocates welcomed the new anti-smoking laws. “It eradicates the last vestiges of advertising,” said Ian Olver the CEO of the Australian Cancer Council. “The color of the pack attracts young, new smokers, and clashes with the photos of health warnings.”

Olver said raising cigarette taxes had traditionally been very effective in reducing smoking rates. “For every 10 percent increase in price, the amount of smokers in the country drops by 3 percent," he said. "Most Australian smokers want the prices to go up because it will encourage them to quit.”

Before the price of cigarettes went up by 2.16 Australian dollars ($1.99) at midnight on April 29, smokers crowded supermarkets and newsagents in order to stockpile.

Smoking has been virtually banned from enclosed spaces in Australia since 2007. Sydney’s most famous beach, Bondi, has had a smoking ban since 2004, and smoking is routinely prohibited on sidewalks near outdoor eating areas.

Since 2006, cigarettes in Australia have been required to display a graphic photograph depicting the effects of smoking. The images must appear on 30 percent of the front of the packet, and 90 percent of the back. These have ranged from photos of fat oozing out of blocked aortas to photographs of gums barely able to adhere to their teeth. These images are likely to be the only color visible on the new packaging.

The proposed packaging is unlikely to prevent smoking, said Paul Harrison, a senior lecturer in advertising and consumer behavior at Deakin Business School. Instead it will break down the tie between the consumer and the brand. “The perception of flavor comes from the packaging, we have an emotional response to it, that isn’t rational," he said. "It’s the same with the way we distinguish the similar types of soft drinks.

“Now it will take more cognitive effort to decide between Winfield and Marlboro when they both look exactly the same on the supermarket shelf. The effect will be small on current smokers, but it might alter their attachment to a particular brand.”

Harrison, however, said that as one of many anti-smoking policies it would work. “There is a big social shift occurring. It’s becoming harder and harder for people to smoke, and less people will tolerate smokers. It’s a hardcore habit to keep up now. Most smokers will have to be really committed to their cause.”

mirror: http://imgur.com/2BprD.jpg


The silver-lining on this cloud might be that this led to smokers finding more unprocessed tobacco and better alternative then industrial cigarettes. Less or no added chemicals and less suggestive pictures.

Edit=Quotes

 

[abstract]

Re: Lung cancer in non-smokers?

Wow...GRiM...dude, thanks for showing us this.

Now, does everyone see how hard they are trying? does everyone see how big of a deal they are making out of something so miniscule as

what a cigarette pack looks like? They are desperate as hell to prevent smoking.

You know what though? I don't see any pictures of ruined livers on cases of beer! Let's get some of that going on!

They sure want you all to drink yourselves to death, but smoking, ohhhh nooo, can't have that. This is so backwards.

 

[Laura]

Re: Lung cancer in non-smokers?

They really ARE desperate, aren't they? Amazing.

 

[Al Today]

Re: Lung cancer in non-smokers?

[...] They are desperate as hell to prevent smoking. [...]

What cracks me up about all this is the cigarette taxes the jerks collect. The gubement would absolutely krap their britches if they lost all that tax money they extort from cigarette smokers. That cigarette tax my friend is a big wad of cash that goes for children healthcare, so they say... TPTB says "Oh NO, Don't smoke, it'll KILL you!!!". Then again they talk about all the tax money going for some children healthcare program, riiiight.... Same mindgame as in Cleveland Ohio where the new multi-bazillion dollar baseball stadium built that was funded from the local county "sin" tax". Yeah, smokers pay for the OUTDOOR stadium, but ya can't smoke in the stadium. Off topic, that tax is also like the lottery (gambling) here in Ohio going for the public school system. Yeah, right... Why then do the schools suck, always whining about being broke? They're all a bunch of lying thieves, a legal mob... I think people are waking up, and boy-o-boy I can't wait & "see" what happens as more and more people wake up...

 

[dant]

Re: Lung cancer in non-smokers?

Regarding the photo with the [cigarette package] with lungs, I guess
I gotta say that it depends on ones perception as to what they see?

From my vantage point, it appears like two slices of plain
tomato/cheese pizza, sans the anchovies?

But I gotta say that if I have to choose between the pizza and
tobacco, I choose the later - hands down!

[update: clarification of photo reference posted by GRiM, reply #13]

 

[Juba]

Re: Lung cancer in non-smokers?

As I understand it, most of the images of lung cancer in "smokers" are really images of lung cancer in people who have worked in mines or in other industries where pollutants other than cigarettes are at high levels.

Blaming it on cigarettes is an easy way to avoid detection and reaction and cost.

Same with blaming obesity on overeating ... distracts attention from the fact that the foods people are eating are causing their metabolisms to go nuts, generating autoimmune diseases, etc.

Seems like black lungs photos (typical miner's disease), are mostly shown as smoker's lungs cancer.
Here are couple of examples of black lungs (and other one of smoker's Emphysema itself, could you see the difference???).

Found couple funny articles where in one doctors can't agree what miner got in his lungs: smoker's Emphysema or black lungs and another one about Miner's silent death, of course black lungs again.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126021059&ps=rs

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126303910

Black lung effect:

Black lung is a chronic disease associated with long term exposure to coal mine dust. Patients who worked in coal mines contracted the condition as a result of inhaling coal mine dust over a long period of time. It is also called coal workers' pneumoconiosis. It is an occupation condition that leads to lung disease. Another common term for lung disease is athracosis. The risk or the likelihood of contracting the condition increases with continued or increased exposure to coal mine dust. Chances are also raised in people over the age of 50.

Symptoms
1. Common signs of the condition include shortness of breath as a result of blocked airways and passage. A person might heave or wheeze. Another symptom that accompanies the disease includes heavy coughing and with occasional expulsion of sputum.
Trends
2. There was a decrease of the condition by about 90 percent from 1965 to 1995. This was due to the enactment of the Coal Mine Health and Safety Act. This saw a significant drop in cases reported about the problem. However there have been concerns that the problem has more than doubled since 1995. There are reports of severe and advanced cases of the disease in coal miners. This has been noted even in miners as young as thirty years old. The situation has raised concern among health officials as the problem has been developing years after the act was passed.
Causes
3. Continued reports about the problem have not been well understood. One possibility could be inadequate implementation of the coal mine regulations. Failure to comply or enact the policy has been given as another possible cause. Inadequate disease prevention measures to take care of changes in coal mine practices. Workers have been taking long hours on the job which could also lead to the problem which could also lead to the onset of the condition.
Emphysema
4. People suffering from black lung disease suffer from a condition known as emphysema where the organ's air sacs collapse as a result to damage suffered by the walls protecting them. The lung is also extensively scarred as a result of inhaling coal mine dust particles.
Heart Disease
5. Black lung disease might bring about heart problems. This is a result of strained activity of pumping blood lacking sufficient amounts of oxygen. The heart muscles are overworked which causes an enlargement of the right part of the organ.
Death
6. There are patients who suffer disability due to problems associated with failed organs such as the lungs and heart. Black lung disease is also fatal as it leads to premature deaths in most patients where the problem is not diagnosed in time.


Probably the most interesting article about black lungs I found it on:

http://thepumphandle.wordpress.com/2009/01/06/why-is-black-lung-back/

Seems like there's more threat in allready harsh mining environment, not only coal dust. This time problem is in rock contains silica, which is 20 times as toxic as coal dust.

Another interesting article about lung cancer in Industrial area of Liege you can find in here:

http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=982909

Last one about lung Problems Caused by Formaldehyde, In the 1970s urea formaldehyde foam was a popular choice to use for insulation of buildings and homes. Exposure to formaldehyde has long been associated with certain diseases and conditions, such as lung problems, you can find in here:

http://www.ehow.com/about_5619669_lung-problems-caused-formaldehyde.html

Or about air pollution, you can read here: http://healthandenergy.com/air_pollution_causes.htm

Cigarettes smoking therats could be last thing to worry about when it comes to lungs problem.

 

[theos]

Re: Lung cancer in non-smokers?

When I was in Thailand I noticed most of the packs of cigs had gruesome pics of the so-called consequences of smoking. There were pictures of people's rotten mouths for example. Here's one.

 

[Juba]

Re: Lung cancer in non-smokers?

Australia introduced "horror" cigarette packages 2 months ago. I'm shocked, I wonder when will something like that happen to other much more toxic goods and products. :( Or, I'm kidding myself, the real things will never have such etiquette in this STS world.

 

[Infiniteness]

It seems that I am not addicted to smoking or can easily quit it, but at the same time I have seen many benefits from it. I usually smoke one or two cigarettes a day, after smoking I feel much more relaxed and calm, I get that buzz. Also my thinking is much more clearer. So I guess I am a mild smoker with some benefits.

 

[abstract]

It seems that I am not addicted to smoking or can easily quit it,

Hi, infiniteness, actually, nicotine is in no way addictive, the term is used to provide an emotional impact on people, read this definition of addiction to see
what i mean: (from a philip morris white paper) http://tobaccodocuments.org/bliley_pm/27556.html?zoom=750&ocr_position=above_foramatted&start_page=21

"Generally speaking, there are several lay impressions: (i) A drug addict, when on his drug becomes intoxicated and is unable to function normally; (2) He suffers intellectual and social impairment; and (3) Moreover, his need for the drug overrides everything else in life. This hardly describes the cigarette smoker. Those who claim smoking is an addiction obviously hope to imply that it is an involuntary act on the part of smokers -- that they are compelled to smoke. But everyday observations make it clear that decisions about smoking reflect freely made personal choices. Simply put, people smoke because they want to and because they enjoy it. It may become a habit, but they are not compelled to continue. Whether an individual continues to smoke or q~its is a voluntary decision that each smoker makes."

 

[abbyjo]

Re: I know the C's were asked about Nicotine and Alcohol

What did the C's say about about Nicotine and Alcohol?

There's some information and some quotes from the C's on nicotine here:
Aliens Don't Like to Eat People That Smoke!
The Cassiopaeans Answer Diet and Health Related Questions

Smoking hand rolled cigarettes with a pure, additive-free tobacco like "American Spirit" seems preferable. I enjoy that brand mixed with a little regular tobacco as American Spirit can be a bit dry sometimes.

okay here's something i have recent experience with...the nicotine polycrix tabs were making me edgy, so i went back to American Spirit, which also sells additive free pipe tobacco. It took 2 tries to find right wood pipe. You can add oils to the tobacco, a drop, you can also mix with a bit of myrrh, makes it softer, whiter and seems to produce more clarity, hard to describe...a calmness but not a hippy dippy groovy looney tunes sort of calmness...just calm, clarity...and this is the Ethiopian myrrh...

you can try with different essences until you find right one, in very small amounts, making your own blend. I was getting frustrated one day and rolled a cigarette, after smoking the wood pipe (cleaned every day and oiled with your favorite...rosemary or eucalyptus are great) the cigarette was not at all satisfying...i could taste the chemicals in the paper...it will not be dry...but make sure that anything you add is 100% pure.

adding a drop of oil here and there also seems to clear the lungs, i had asthma, now i do not, and i do have to see an MD to renew the RX every year. Ba'ar sells a product called "Herbal Breathing" made according to Cayce recipe, his clients said it worked, it does appear to work and better than the pharmaceutical inhalers...without the steroids. I cough but not constantly and i bring up mucus and life goes on, I am calmer, more focused and that is my goal...for me it may be different, I do still go out but avoid loud noises and crowds...[/quote]

[references promoting drug use removed by moderator] - please read forum guidelines.

 

[abstract]

Hi, abbyjo.

I'm not a moderator but will you please explain how your post is relevant to the topic in any way except for the very brief mentions

that you smoke tobacco??

You seem to be drenched in subjective thinking, IMO.

 

[anart]

Hi, abbyjo.

I'm not a moderator but will you please explain how your post is relevant to the topic in any way except for the very brief mentions

that you smoke tobacco??

You seem to be drenched in subjective thinking, IMO.

Abbyjo, please read the forum guidelines in their entirety.