Smoking is... good?

[Ares]

Carbon Monoxide Research

quote from
"The Health Benefits of Tobacco"
http://www.amazon.com/Benefits-Tobacco-William-Campbell-Douglass/dp/9962636450

Carbon monoxide is a by product of tobacco smoke. A report indicates low levels of CO may help victims of heart attacks and strokes

CO inhibits blood clotting, thereby dissolving harmful clots in the arteries. The researchers focused on CO's close resemblance to Nitric Oxide (NO) that keeps blood vessels from dilating and prevents buildup of the detritus of clotting. The researchers commented" Recently NO has been elevated from a common air pollutant...to an [internal] second messenger of utmost physiological importance. Therefore, many of us may not be entirely surprised to learn that CO can... rescue the lung from [vascular] injury," reports the researchers.

The extrapolation from this is that cigar smoke can relieve ischemic heart disease through the minute amounts of CO present.
Ref: http://193.78.190.200/10b/cm.htm

Now the given reference does not work, But a little digging of the role of CO and NO on the web and this is what I found - this may be the source of the quote above:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12006181

Cross talk between carbon monoxide and nitric oxide.

Hartsfield CL.
Cardiovascular Pulmonary Research Laboratory, Pulmonary Sciences and Critical Care Medicine, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver, CO 80262, USA. cynthia.hartsfield@UCHSC.edu

Abstract
Carbon monoxide and nitric oxide are two endogenously produced gases that can act as second messenger molecules. Heme oxygenase and nitric oxide synthase are the enzyme systems responsible for generating carbon monoxide and nitric oxide, respectively. Both carbon monoxide and nitric oxide share similar properties, such as the ability to activate soluble guanylate cyclase to increase cyclic GMP. It is becoming increasingly clear that these two gases do not always work independently, but rather can modulate each other's activity. Although much is known about the heme oxygenase/carbon monoxide and nitric oxide synthase/nitric oxide pathways, how these two important systems interact is less well understood. This review attempts to define the current known relationship between carbon monoxide and nitric oxide as it relates to their production and physiological function.

another study:

Carbon monoxide and nitric oxide as coneurotransmitters in the enteric nervous system: Evidence from genomic deletion of biosynthetic enzymes
by L. Xue *, G. Farrugia * , † , ‡, S. M. Miller *, C. D. Ferris § , ¶, S. H. Snyder § , ‖ , *, and J. H. Szurszewski * , †

Abstract

Nitric oxide (NO) and carbon monoxide (CO) seem to be neurotransmitters in the brain. The colocalization of their respective biosynthetic enzymes, neuronal NO synthase (nNOS) and heme oxygenase-2 (HO2), in enteric neurons and altered intestinal function in mice with genomic deletion of the enzymes (nNOS Δ/Δ and HO2 Δ/Δ) suggest neurotransmitter roles for NO and CO in the enteric nervous system. We now establish that NO and CO are both neurotransmitters that interact as cotransmitters. Small intestinal smooth muscle cells from nNOS Δ/Δ and HO2 Δ/Δ mice are depolarized, with apparent additive effects in the double knockouts (HO2 Δ/Δ/nNOS Δ/Δ). Muscle relaxation and inhibitory neurotransmission are reduced in the mutant mice. In HO2 Δ/Δ preparations, responses to electrical field stimulation are nearly abolished despite persistent nNOS expression, whereas exogenous CO restores normal responses, indicating that the NO system does not function in the absence of CO generation.

If CO and NO are neurotransmitters, then minute dosages of these gases may indeed be beneficial? The standard trick to attack here is to make a general blanket statement "CO is deadly to humans", (which is true), but is also very misleading in context.

As the author William Campbell of the book cited above says

Much has been said about CO found in tobacco smoke. CO in sufficient amounts is deadly; there is no doubt about that. [But] So is cobra venom and botulinum toxin, but tiny amounts have been found effective in certain conditions. CO has also been found to have significant medical benefits in tiny amounts. Its the new (to most people) science of hormesis.

It is interesting to note that public health doctors think its OK to dose you on a continuous basis with fluoride in your water, even though the highly toxic fluoride is cumulative in your tissues, including your brain - whereas CO is not. But 'everyone knows' CO is a deadly gas (which it is) and so it cannot be used in any amount for medical purposes, which is contrary to the basic pharmacological principle and knowledge.
...

 

[LQB]

Thanks moksha,

From the February 1997 ACP Observer, copyright © 1997 by the American College of Physicians.

By Patricia Braus
...
Since then, the connection between smoking and depression has been solidly established. From 30% to 50% of patients who use smoking cessation services have a history of depression, according to the AHCPR smoking cessation guidelines. From his work in smoking cessation, Dr. Glassman estimates that about 50% of female smokers and 25% of male smokers have a history of depression. ...

Lots of interesting data. I have long thought that the negative health effects could be balanced with proper nutrition and supplementation - short of additive poisons - and recognizing what elements need supplementation. The above also suggests that the supps extend into brain chemistry as much discussed here regarding B Vits, 5-HTP, GABA, melatonin, etc. There might even exist a good "brain supplement" package for smokers.

 

[LQB]

Carbon Monoxide Research

If CO and NO are neurotransmitters, then minute dosages of these gases may indeed be beneficial? The standard trick to attack here is to make a general blanket statement "CO is deadly to humans", (which is true), but is also very misleading in context.

Indeed, "the dose makes the poison".

If CO/NO help clear clots, you would think that smokers would be much lees prone to stroke and other related conditions.

 

[Ares]

Thanks moksha,

Lots of interesting data. I have long thought that the negative health effects could be balanced with proper nutrition and supplementation - short of additive poisons - and recognizing what elements need supplementation. The above also suggests that the supps extend into brain chemistry as much discussed here regarding B Vits, 5-HTP, GABA, melatonin, etc. There might even exist a good "brain supplement" package for smokers.

you missed the point I was (unsuccessfully) trying to make - it seems that (although I cannot say with absolute certainty yet) for most people moderate smoking of cigarettes does not cause ANY major ill effects - in fact the opposite seems to be the case. This is what the media is trying to obfuscate with their spins and clever twists.

also if you recall what the Cs said on this subject:

http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/diet.htm
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.

so as per the Cs, it seems the unrelenting propaganda that smoking will kill you ('proven' with biased studies) is the major cause of serious illness in smokers - i wish THAT can be proven with a medical study.

 

[Gonzo]

I wouldn't say the media is intentionally try to obfuscate, I think it's more a case of ignorance. I remember working in the newsroom when a letter came in from a concerned citizen about the ills of fluoride. Everybody laughed and joked the letter writer might have his tin foil hat a little too tight. Journalists are part of the programmed society and will only report what is mainstream.

If journalists were to come across information regarding tobacco's beneficial attributes, 90 percent of them would dispel it. Most will follow mainstream science. The remaining 10 percent will present the research to their editor, of which 90 percent would scoff at it and remind the reported of the overwhelming evidence that smoking is not only harmful, but a known carcinogen.

The remaining 10 percent of editors who might be open minded enough to actually read the research and start questioning mainstream science, will remember that the publisher signs the pay cheque and doesn't appreciate conspiracy theories.

Such news would only make its way in small, rural weekly newspapers in regions where tobacco growing was once the main crop but is now merely a dying flame. And even then, the reporter will have to caveat or soften the story, unless the remaining tobacco growers produce organic, chemical free tobacco, since they rural papers will not write stories that kill any of their dwindling industry.

Until science can get past their professional culture and a critical mass of awareness forms, this information will not be in the media.

The only way I can see science moving this way is if the current knowledge is transferred among to masses, which will help make it more acceptable for science to flip flop on previous statements regarding the evils of tobacco.

They do have an out. The fact that little research was ever done on organic, non-commercial, chemical-free tobacco. But the paradigm shift is currently too great right now, OSIT.

Gonzo

 

[JGeropoulas]

...They do have an out. The fact that little research was ever done on organic, non-commercial, chemical-free tobacco. But the paradigm shift is currently too great right now, OSIT.
Gonzo

Instead of fulfilling America's "Manifest Destiny" and killing those 15 million Native Americans, if we'd studied those "heathens" with their peace pipes, we'd have incontestable proof of the benefits of tobacco.

As President Dwight Eisenhower "If you put all the facts on the table, most problems solve themselves", which would explain why there are so many STS schemes for tilting tables and hiding facts.

 

[Psalehesost]

Another update:

I've smoked pipe tobacco for a while, and the difference to snus is enormous. During a week of smoking very regularly I experienced much "opening up", finding myself just after smoking in a state perfect for prayer and contemplation, which I put to use. I found myself one day feeling more like I did as a child, emotionally more vibrant and less inhibited - while that as an extreme has subsided, smoking seems (given the remaining effects) to on the whole have done as much thus far as the first months of E-E practice visibly did.

After my lungs got used to it (they were too "ticklish" at first), it was great. Now, however, I seem to have met a problem - body reacting a bit to something in the tobacco. This slowly mounted before with the snus I used as well, eventually, in hindsight, having some clear effects (it felt like a cold I'd just had never completely left me, with very slight coughing and a dripping nose from time to time). So I stopped using the snus while smoking away. The reaction to whatever the something in the pipe tobacco (non-organic, standard Swedish Match thingy - haven't found many options apart from more such flavors yet, though I will be looking) is one of becoming a bit listless and feeling a bit heavy in the head.

For now, I will try rotating between the pipe smoking and use of different snus so as to avoid using one of them enough to trigger a reaction, while hoping to eventually find something better that is accessible to me.

 

[Thomas Alan]

Another update:

I've smoked pipe tobacco for a while, and the difference to snus is enormous. During a week of smoking very regularly I experienced much "opening up", finding myself just after smoking in a state perfect for prayer and contemplation, which I put to use. I found myself one day feeling more like I did as a child, emotionally more vibrant and less inhibited - while that as an extreme has subsided, smoking seems (given the remaining effects) to on the whole have done as much thus far as the first months of E-E practice visibly did.

After my lungs got used to it (they were too "ticklish" at first), it was great. Now, however, I seem to have met a problem - body reacting a bit to something in the tobacco. This slowly mounted before with the snus I used as well, eventually, in hindsight, having some clear effects (it felt like a cold I'd just had never completely left me, with very slight coughing and a dripping nose from time to time). So I stopped using the snus while smoking away. The reaction to whatever the something in the pipe tobacco (non-organic, standard Swedish Match thingy - haven't found many options apart from more such flavors yet, though I will be looking) is one of becoming a bit listless and feeling a bit heavy in the head.

For now, I will try rotating between the pipe smoking and use of different snus so as to avoid using one of them enough to trigger a reaction, while hoping to eventually find something better that is accessible to me.

I've find it's best for me not to use snus on the same day as smoking. It's like my body becomes overwhelmed with tobacco if I do. Don't feel good. So either a smoke day or snus day. I like smoking more. It gets the nicotine to the brain quicker.

I have a long air travel day coming. I will probably use snus that day so I don't have to deal with smoking rules at airports.

Mac

 

[Psalehesost]

I've smoked pipe tobacco for a while [...] Now, however, I seem to have met a problem - body reacting a bit to something in the tobacco.

No longer so sure about this. A smaller part of it seems to have been emotional - old, buried feeling of hopelessness surfacing, now dealt with (at first I didn't feel it even though it was "active" in me, then I became aware of it). The big part of it might have more to do with an illness I've had lately. Some days ago I felt very slightly as I do when feverish, on and off for brief periods along with a slightly rough throat. Then it broke out - on saturday I felt very warm and tired and went to sleep early, and on sunday I was very feverish, dizzy whenever I got up, and quite tired and incapable of doing much. But I don't know where the issue is - my nose feels fine, my throat almost fine (just the slight roughness which came and went a few times and then stayed away), my lungs fine, and my stomach fine. Just intense fever. Today it gradually got much better, though not completely well yet. I'll see once this has passed how my body feels about smoking.

If it happens again once I smoke, then I guess it's a toxic reaction. If it doesn't, another possibility would be that I've carried some mild sickness for a long time that never got completely well, and that my body is finally dealing with it. (my past health condition would support this idea)

I've find it's best for me not to use snus on the same day as smoking. It's like my body becomes overwhelmed with tobacco if I do. Don't feel good. So either a smoke day or snus day. I like smoking more. It gets the nicotine to the brain quicker.

That makes sense.

Also, while I haven't used them myself as snus is widely available here, there are a number of online shops for snus which I suppose you might try if you want to try other varieties. I've noticed that among the snus varieties I've tried out, Ettan (loose, though portion also exists) is the one my body is the most happy with - perhaps because it contains the least amount of additives. (it's a bit like General, only with no bergamot oil in it and, I think, a somewhat different tobacco blend. it has a stronger, purer tobacco taste)

I have a long air travel day coming. I will probably use snus that day so I don't have to deal with smoking rules at airports.

Sounds like a good idea.

 

[Ares]

i noticed that in the first few months i started smoking regularly (Drum UK roll-your-owns), sometimes i'd have problems breathing at night - so i stopped smoking few hours before hitting the bed. now however this seems to have completed cured all by itself, probably the lungs have gotten used to it. unfortunately i don't have too many choices other than the commercial cigarettes, harvest roll-your-owns, and drum where i live.

btw, has anyone tried Indonesian kretek (cloves) cigarettes? the commercial ones have a very sweet taste, as if some sugar was mixed somewhere in the process. i tried to do my own cloves n tobacco roll your own experiement, and it wasn't sweet in the least (although cloves taste was there for sure)

 

[Gonzo]

I cannot speak for any other brand of clove cigarette but
Kretek international's Canadian distributor imports Djarum into Canada.

Djarum is a clove/tobacco blend. I used to smoke them and found them initially pleasant, but after a while noticed they occasionally provoked headaches.

Then I discovered that clove tends to numb the throat, so you don't feel the burn of raunchy, poor quality tobacco.

As well, I felt there was a fair bit of sugar involved either in the curing or flavouring and I can't imagine that would be very healthy.

When you combine the sugar with the fertilizers used in the growing and the chemicals used in the processing, I really can't see any benefit in ever smoking them again.

I recently noticed they now have at least 6 different packages offering a range of flavour or strength, I assume.

Perhaps you could order tobacco online?

I think it is also important to remember that, although tobacco can offer health benefits, it doesn't mean everyone should smoke. The Cs never said tobacco was essential and there are many who can't seem to tolerate smoking very well - in fact, even with high quality, organic tobacco, the body's of some just seem to reject it. So, if you cannot source decent tobacco, it might be a healthier choice to not smoke until you can find affordable, clean tobacco in either chemical free paper tubes or rolling papers.

It's a risk/benefit decision everyone has to make for themselves.

I hope some of what I've written helps.

Gonzo

 

[Thomas Alan]

Has anyone tried pellet tobacco? When I was in a local tobacco shop the owner pointed it out. Oliver Twist, made in Denmark. He gave me one to try.
Stronger taste at first than snus, then not much taste. Definitely could feel the nicotine.

A bit expensive though.

Any thoughts about safety, additives in this product?

Mac

 

[Ares]

Has anyone tried pellet tobacco? When I was in a local tobacco shop the owner pointed it out. Oliver Twist, made in Denmark. He gave me one to try.
Stronger taste at first than snus, then not much taste. Definitely could feel the nicotine.

A bit expensive though.

Any thoughts about safety, additives in this product?

Mac

Ive never heard about this before here in Asia; sounds more hassle-free than snus though. did you buy this in the States? this could be ideal in places where smoking is prohibited, though having a lot if its sugar coated may not be that great for you (assuming the tobacco is pure)

also can anyone comment on the effect to the teeth on using snus regularly? i have seen people using snus in asia and their teeth get brown n yucky

On snus, from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snus
Since snus is not intended nor recommended for inhalation, it does not affect the lungs as cigarettes do. Because it is steam-cured, rather than fire-cured like smoking tobacco or other chewing tobacco, it contains lower concentrations of nitrosamines and other carcinogens that form from the partially anaerobic heating of proteins; 2.8 parts per mil for Ettan brand compared to as high as 127.9 parts per mil in American brands, according to a study by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Health.[4] The World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledges that Swedish men have the lowest rate of lung cancer in Europe, partly due to the low tobacco smoking rate, but does not argue for substituting snus for smoking, citing that the effects of snus still remain unclear. Around 2005 several reports, partially funded by the snus industry, pointed to the fact that no carcinogenic effects could be attributed to Nordic snus and this resulted in the removal of the warning label that claimed snus could cause cancer. It was replaced with the more neutral label "Can affect your health negatively". Research is still going on but at the moment no conclusive reports have been made regarding the health effects of snus.

 

[Ares]

I think it is also important to remember that, although tobacco can offer health benefits, it doesn't mean everyone should smoke. The Cs never said tobacco was essential and there are many who can't seem to tolerate smoking very well - in fact, even with high quality, organic tobacco, the body's of some just seem to reject it. So, if you cannot source decent tobacco, it might be a healthier choice to not smoke until you can find affordable, clean tobacco in either chemical free paper tubes or rolling papers.

I sure agree with you. fwiw, even though my wife tried it a few times, it never really appealed to her. I, though have taken to it like I've been smoking for decades 8) seemed like the most natural thing in the world

 

[Nathan]

Has anyone found pure tobacco is to be addictive?

I can go weeks without it, personally. I'm wondering if the addiction is predominantly the chemicals added to commercial cigarettes.