Smoking is... good?

Rena said:
About two months ago, I was able to start smoking organic cigarettes. However, about everyday, or at least every other day, I cough up mucus (sorry for the grossness) at what feels like the top of my lungs. It takes hardly what I consider a cough, but little more than clearing of the throat to get this out. I hope I am making sense, because it is not what people term as smokers cough (which I have never had). What I would like to know is, if this could be old chemicals, pesticides, binders, fillers etc leaving my lungs?

The same thing happened to me when I started to roll my own & went organic. For a week or so, I also coughed/cleared alot of mucous from what seemed to be my upper lungs. I assumed it was chemicals & other crap clearing out.

I did not miss my usual brand of smokes. I was just excited to have better lung function. I am no longer short of breath climbing stairs or "wheezing". The wheezing started when fire retardant was added to the cig paper here in the USA. That prompted me to search out an alternative.

I just wish I had stopped smoking commercial cigs sooner! And not to mention the savings of a few hundred dollars a month, that also made the transition very easy. ($7/pack commercial vs $1/pack roll your own is HUGE savings!)
 
Lilou said:
Rena said:
About two months ago, I was able to start smoking organic cigarettes. However, about everyday, or at least every other day, I cough up mucus (sorry for the grossness) at what feels like the top of my lungs. It takes hardly what I consider a cough, but little more than clearing of the throat to get this out. I hope I am making sense, because it is not what people term as smokers cough (which I have never had). What I would like to know is, if this could be old chemicals, pesticides, binders, fillers etc leaving my lungs?

The same thing happened to me when I started to roll my own & went organic. For a week or so, I also coughed/cleared alot of mucous from what seemed to be my upper lungs. I assumed it was chemicals & other crap clearing out.

I did not miss my usual brand of smokes. I was just excited to have better lung function. I am no longer short of breath climbing stairs or "wheezing". The wheezing started when fire retardant was added to the cig paper here in the USA. That prompted me to search out an alternative.

I just wish I had stopped smoking commercial cigs sooner! And not to mention the savings of a few hundred dollars a month, that also made the transition very easy. ($7/pack commercial vs $1/pack roll your own is HUGE savings!)

Thanks for brining this up! I have had the mucous issue for a while now, seems to have cleared finally. I didnt know exactly why this occurs, but I've been mixing my rolled up cigarettes with the commercial ones. I'm thinking there are other factors that play as well, as it has reduced once I switched back to 100% rollies, but not eliminated completely.

Maybe candida??! :(
 
:) Hi I have question about expiration date for cigarettes. I found in my luggage two packs of Black Marlboro Menthol.
Probably three years old. never opened. I bought it as a souvenir for friend in Germany but I didn't
return to Germany for three years. So, now I opened the case and, don't know what to do.
anyone know how long can you hold closed pack? Thanks
 
Hey Kaigen,

As far as I know tobacco is pretty much inert if kept in relatively dry conditions and unopened packs of cigarettes should be fine even after a few years, especially if the cellophane wrapper is undamaged. I'd open one pack and have a good sniff first to see if there's any staleness or mold. If not then just carry on as normal :)

I think the main problem you will have is that the cigarettes may have dried out. If so I'd keep them in a humidor for a bit (if you have such a thing) or just open the pack and leave it laying around for a day or two before smoking.

Hope this helps...

Edit: spelling
 
Rabelais said:
In essence, if you are smoking cigarettes manufactured in the US... STOP IMMEDIATELY!!!

Most of the true leaf tobacco grown in the US, where there are regulations in place to restrict the types and quantities of insecticide, herbicide and fertilizers used, is shipped to Europe. This stuff is still toxic, but clean enough for the much higher standards in Europe. Most of what is used to manufacture US cigarettes is not leaf at all. It is a synthetic called "sheet" tobacco. This is made from 3rd world imported scrap (stalks, stems, roots and moldy waste), along with waste product from the wood pulp processing industry. It has very little, if any, tobacco leaf content. The imported tobacco scrap material is heavily tainted with highly carcinogenic insecticides which are banned for any application in the US. There is a loophole in the laws which control the efficacy of imported leaf tobacco, which the tobacco companies exploit. There is no inspection or regulation of tobacco scrap whatsoever, and from this is made your Winstons, Marlboros, etc.

I am curious if what is stated here also relates to the American Spirit organic tobacco RYO as well? It sounds like the author was disappointed with the direction NAS went in, but I wasn't sure if he ever specifically called out his own brand in the book.
 
rudicron said:
I mean, is snus ultimately bad? Is there any particular kind of snus I should chose over another?

The only snus I have ever seen are the Marlboro and commercial brand Snus. And who knows what is inside that? Do organic or additive free snus even exist?

Rena said:
Hi everyone, I have been smoking for about 42 years. About two months ago, I was able to start smoking organic cigarettes. However, about everyday, or at least every other day, I cough up mucus (sorry for the grossness) at what feels like the top of my lungs. It takes hardly what I consider a cough, but little more than clearing of the throat to get this out. I hope I am making sense, because it is not what people term as smokers cough (which I have never had). What I would like to know is, if this could be old chemicals, pesticides, binders, fillers etc leaving my lungs?

I would agree that it most likely is the old stuff coming up. A good friend of mine smoked commercial cigs for years, switched to commercial 'menthol' for 6 months, then switched back to commercial non-menthol. She immediately began coughing up all sorts of stuff, and was sure that it was the extra additives in the menthol. When I smoked Marlboros all the time, I was always hacking up a lot of phlegm. I've been on 95%+ AS tobacco for years now, and very rarely cough at all.

Also, thanks everyone for the Kentucky tobacco link and reviews, $99 for 5 pounds is an unbelievably affordable deal!! I will also be trying out that brand very soon.

Kaigen said:
:) Hi I have question about expiration date for cigarettes. I found in my luggage two packs of Black Marlboro Menthol.
Probably three years old. never opened. I bought it as a souvenir for friend in Germany but I didn't
return to Germany for three years. So, now I opened the case and, don't know what to do.
anyone know how long can you hold closed pack? Thanks

Agreed that Marlboros are pretty nasty. On the topic of old tobacco, I once purchased a pouch of American Spirit (regular) from a vendor at a festival, it ended up being about 3 or 4 years old based on the labelling. The taste and smoothness of this were amazing! It made me think that storing the AS tobacco for a few years, and letting it age, may dramatically reduce the harshness of that smoke.
 
meta-agnostic said:
Musician Joe Jackson is apparently a big anti-anti-smoking activist, and I recently came across this essay of his entitled Smoke, Lies and the Nanny State:

http://www.joejackson.com/pdf/5smokingpdf_jj_smoke_lies.pdf

My link to Joe Jackson made it onto SOTT!

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/231973-Smoke-Lies-and-the-Nanny-State

In that case I will properly give credit to the A.V. Club for interviewing him recently. They linked to the essay right near the beginning of the interview and I didn't even finish reading the interview. :-[

http://www.avclub.com/articles/joe-jackson,58735/
 
Hi Lilou and Moksha,

I think it is a good sign that this is coming out because I feel as though I can breath deeper now. My son in law told me it's happening to him too, and he has been smoking the organic a little longer than I have been.

The money saved is amazing on top of the healthy cigarettes, now why can't organic food be cheaper?

I might pay more for mine, but the store I go to has these automatic machines that does the rolling for me, and I walk out with two cartons in about 20 minutes. Still $24.00 is a far cry better then what I was paying per carton, plus I am smoking less which they told me I would because your body is getting more nicotine instead of chemicals.
 
I got some cuban cigarretes and by god's sake, how are you able to smoke organic tobacco? is really strong haha
 
I didn't go through all the post because there is so many. Here is an article I have a hard copy of, it still may be on the internet, but Joe Vialls died in 2004, I believe and his work is not so easily found.

Smoking Helps Protect Against Lung Cancer

_http://www.vialls.com/transpositions/smoking.html [link no longer works]


Every year, thousands of medical doctors and other members of the “Anti-Smoking Inquisition” spend billions of dollars perpetuating what has unquestionably become the most misleading though successful social engineering scam in history. With the encouragement of most western governments, these Orwellian lobbyists pursue smokers with a fanatical zeal that completely overshadows the ridiculous American alcohol prohibition debacle, which started in 1919 and lasted until 1933.

Nowadays we look back on American prohibition with justifiable astonishment. Is it really true that an entire nation allowed itself to be denied a beer or scotch by a tiny group of tambourine-bashing fanatics? Sadly, yes it is, despite a total lack of evidence that alcohol causes any harm to humans, unless consumed in truly astronomical quantities.

Alas, the safety of alcohol was of no interest to the tambourine-bashers, for whom control over others was the one and only true goal. Americans were visibly “sinning” by enjoying themselves having a few alcoholic drinks, and the puritans interceded on behalf of God to make them all feel miserable again.

Although there is no direct link between alcohol and tobacco, the history of American prohibition is important, because it helps us understand how a tiny number of zealots managed to control the behavior and lives of tens of millions of people. Nowadays exactly the same thing is happening to smokers, though this time it is at the hands of government zealots and ignorant medical practitioners rather than tambourine-bashing religious fanatics.

Certain governments know that their past actions are directly responsible for causing most of the lung and skin cancers in the world today, so they go to extreme lengths in trying to deflect responsibility and thus financial liability away from themselves, and onto harmless organic tobacco instead. As we will find later in the report, humble organic tobacco has never hurt anyone, and in certain ways can justifiably claim to provide startling health protection.

Not all governments around the world share the same problem. Japan and Greece have the highest numbers of adult cigarette smokers in the world, but the lowest incidence of lung cancer. In direct contrast to this, America, Australia, Russia, and some South Pacific island groups have the lowest numbers of adult cigarette smokers in the world, but the highest incidence of lung cancer. This is clue number-one in unraveling the absurd but entrenched western medical lie that “smoking causes lung cancer.”



The first European contact with tobacco was in 1492, when Columbus and fellow explorer Rodriguo de Jerez saw natives smoking in Cuba. That very same day, de Jerez took his first puff and found it very relaxing, just as the locals had assured him it would be. This was an important occasion, because Rodriguo de Jerez discovered what the Cubans and native Americans had known for many centuries: that cigar and cigarette smoking is not only relaxing, it also cures coughs and other minor ailments. When he returned home, Rodriguo de Jerez proudly lit a cigar in the street, and was promptly arrested and imprisoned for three years by the horrified Spanish Inquisition. De Jerez thus became the first victim of the anti-smoking lobbies.

In less than a century, smoking became a much enjoyed and accepted social habit throughout Europe, with thousands of tons of tobacco being imported from the colonies to meet the increasing demand. A growing number of writers praised tobacco as a universal remedy for mankind’s ills. By the early 20th Century almost one in every two people smoked, but the incidence of lung cancer remained so low that it was almost immeasurable. Then something extraordinary happened on July 16, 1945: a terrifying cataclysmic event that would eventually cause western governments to distort the perception of smoking forever. As K. Greisen recalls:

“When the intensity of the light had diminished, I put away the glass and looked toward the tower directly. At about this time I noticed a blue color surrounding the smoke cloud. Then someone shouted that we should observe the shock wave travelling along the ground. The appearance of this was a brightly lighted circular area, near the ground, slowly spreading out towards us. The color was yellow.

“The permanence of the smoke cloud was one thing that surprised me. After the first rapid explosion, the lower part of the cloud seemed to assume a fixed shape and to remain hanging motionless in the air. The upper part meanwhile continued to rise, so that after a few minutes it was at least five miles high. It slowly assumed a zigzag shape because of the changing wind velocity at different altitudes. The smoke had pierced a cloud early in its ascent, and seemed to be completely unaffected by the cloud.”

This was the notorious “Trinity Test”, the first dirty nuclear weapon to be detonated in the atmosphere. A six-kilogram sphere of plutonium, compressed to supercriticality by explosive lenses, Trinity exploded over New Mexico with a force equal to approximately 20,000 tons of TNT. Within seconds, billions of deadly radioactive particles were sucked into the atmosphere to an altitude of six miles, where high-speed jet streams could circulate them far and wide.

The American Government knew about the radiation in advance, was well aware of its lethal effects on humans, but bluntly ordered the test with a complete disregard for health and welfare. In law, this was culpable gross negligence, but the American Government did not care. Sooner or later, one way or the other, they would find another culprit for any long-term effects suffered by Americans and other citizens in local and more remote areas.

If a single microscopic radioactive fallout particle lands on your skin at the beach, you get skin cancer. Inhale a single particle of the same lethal muck, and death from lung cancer becomes inevitable, unless you happen to be an exceptionally lucky cigarette smoker. The solid microscopic radioactive particle buries itself deep in the lung tissue, completely overwhelms the body’s limited reserves of vitamin B17, and causes rampant uncontrollable cell multiplication.

How can we be absolutely sure that radioactive fallout particles really cause lung cancer every time a subject is internally exposed? For real scientists, as opposed to medical quacks and government propagandists, this is not a problem. For any theory to be accepted scientifically, it must first be proven in accordance with rigorous requirements universally agreed by scientists. First the suspect radioactive agent must be isolated, then used in properly controlled laboratory experiments to produce the claimed result, i.e. lung cancer in mammals.

Scientists have ruthlessly sacrificed tens of thousands of mice and rats in this way over the years, deliberately subjecting their lungs to radioactive matter. The documented scientific results of these various experiments are identical. Every mouse or rat obediently contracts lung cancer, and every mouse or rat then dies. Theory has thus been converted to hard scientific fact under tightly controlled laboratory conditions. The suspect agent (radioactive matter) caused the claimed result (lung cancer) when inhaled by mammals.



The overall magnitude of lung cancer risk to humans from atmospheric radioactive fallout cannot be overstated. Before Russia, Britain and America outlawed atmospheric testing on August 5, 1963, more than 4,200 kilograms of plutonium had been discharged into the atmosphere. Because we know that less than one microgram [millionth of a single gram] of inhaled plutonium causes terminal lung cancer in a human, we therefore know that your friendly government has lofted 4,200,000,000 [4.2 Billion] lethal doses into the atmosphere, with particle radioactive half-life a minimum of 50,000 years. Frightening? Unfortunately it gets worse.

The plutonium mentioned above exists in the actual nuclear weapon before detonation, but by far the greatest number of deadly radioactive particles are those derived from common dirt or sand sucked up from the ground, and irradiated while travelling vertically through the weapon’s fireball. These particles form by far the largest part of the “smoke” in any photo of an atmospheric nuclear detonation. In most cases several tons of material are sucked up and permanently irradiated in transit, but let us be incredibly conservative and claim that only 1,000 kilograms of surface material is sucked up by each individual atmospheric nuclear test.

Before being banned by Russia, Britain and America, a total of 711 atmospheric nuclear tests were conducted, thereby creating 711,000 kilograms of deadly microscopic radioactive particles, to which must be added the original 4,200 kilograms from the weapons themselves, for a gross though very conservative total of 715,200 kilograms. There are more than a million lethal doses per kilogram, meaning that your governments have contaminated your atmosphere with more than 715,000,000,000 [715 Billion] such doses, enough to cause lung or skin cancer 117 times in every man, woman and child on earth.

Before you ask, no, the radioactive particles do not just “fade away”, at least not in your lifetime or that of your children and grandchildren. With a half-life of 50,000 years or longer, these countless trillions of deadly government-manufactured radioactive particles are essentially with you forever. Circulated around the world by powerful jet streams, these particles are deposited at random, though in higher concentrations within a couple of thousand miles of the original test sites. A simple wind or other surface disturbance is all that is needed to stir them up again and create enhanced dangers for those in the vicinity.

The once-innocent activity of playfully kicking sand around on the beach in summer could nowadays easily translate to suicide, if you happen to stir up a few radioactive particles that could stick to your skin or be inhaled into your lungs. Stop poking fun at Michael Jackson when he appears at your local airport wearing a surgical mask over his nose and mouth. He may look eccentric, but Michael will almost certainly outlive most of us.



Twelve years after the cataclysmic Trinity test, it became obvious to western governments that things were getting completely out of control, with a 1957 British Medical Research Council report stating that global “deaths from lung cancer have more than doubled during the period 1945 to 1955”, though no explanation was offered. During the same ten-year period, cancer deaths in the immediate proximity of Hiroshima and Nagasaki went up threefold. By the end of official atmospheric testing in 1963, the incidence of lung cancer in the Pacific Islands had increased fivefold since 1945. Having screwed your environment completely for 50,000 years, it was time for “big government” to start taking heavy diversionary action.

How could people be proved to be causing themselves to contract lung cancer, i.e. be said to be guilty of a self inflicted injury for which government could never be blamed or sued? The only obvious substance that people inhaled into their lungs, apart from air, was tobacco smoke, so the government boot was put in. Poorly qualified medical “researchers” suddenly found themselves overwhelmed with massive government grants all aimed at achieving the same end-result: “Prove that smoking causes lung cancer”. Real scientists [especially some notable nuclear physicists] smiled grimly at the early pathetic efforts of the fledgling anti-smoking lobby, and lured them into the deadliest trap of all. The quasi medical researchers were invited to prove their false claims under exactly the same rigid scientific rules that were used when proving that radioactive particles cause lung cancer in mammals.

Remember, for any theory to be accepted scientifically, it must first be proven in accordance with rigorous requirements universally agreed by scientists. First the suspect agent [tobacco smoke] must be isolated, then used in properly controlled laboratory experiments to produce the claimed result, i.e. lung cancer in mammals. Despite exposing literally tens of thousands of especially vulnerable mice and rats to the equivalent of 200 cigarettes per day for years on end, “medical science” has never once managed to induce lung cancer in any mouse or rat. Yes, you did read that correctly. For more than forty years, hundreds of thousands of medical doctors have been deliberately lying to you.

The real scientists had the quasi medical researchers by the throat, because “pairing” the deadly radioactive particle experiment with the benign tobacco smoke experiment, proved conclusively for all time that smoking cannot under any circumstances cause lung cancer. And further, in one large “accidental” experiment they were never allowed to publish, the real scientists proved with startling clarity that smoking actually helps to protect against lung cancer.

All mice and rats are used one-time-only in a specific experiment, and then destroyed. In this way researchers ensure that the results of whatever substance they are testing cannot be accidentally “contaminated” by the real or imagined effects of another substance. Then one day as if by magic, a few thousand mice from the smoking experiment “accidentally” found their way into the radioactive particle experiment, which in the past had killed every single one of its unfortunate test subjects. But this time, completely against the odds, sixty percent of the smoking mice survived exposure to the radioactive particles. The only variable was their prior exposure to copious quantities of tobacco smoke.


'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.' Vishnu, Bhagavad-Gita

Government pressure was immediately brought to bear and the facts suppressed, but this did not completely silence the real scientists. Tongue in cheek perhaps, Professor Schrauzer, President of the International Association of Bio-inorganic Chemists, testified before a U.S. congressional committee in 1982 that it had long been well known to scientists that certain constituents of tobacco smoke act as anti-carcinogens [anti-cancer agents] in test animals. He continued that when known carcinogens [cancer causing substances] are applied to the animals, the application of constituents of cigarette smoke counter them.

Nor did Professor Schrauzer stop there. He further testified on oath to the committee that “no ingredient of cigarette smoke has been shown to cause human lung cancer”, adding that “no-one has been able to produce lung cancer in laboratory animals from smoking.” It was a neat answer to a rather perplexing problem. If government blocks publication of your scientific paper, take the alternate route and put the essential facts on the written congressional record!

Predictably, this hard truth drove the government and quasi medical “researchers” into a frenzy of rage. By 1982 they had actually started to believe their own ridiculous propaganda, and were not to be silenced by eminent members of the scientific establishment. Quite suddenly they switched the blame to other “secret” ingredients put into cigarettes by the tobacco companies. “Yes, that must be it!” they clamored eagerly, until a handful of scientists got on the phone and pointed out that these same “secret” ingredients had been included in the mice experiments, and had therefore also been proved incapable of causing lung cancer.

Things were looking desperate for government and the medical community overall. Since the anti-smoking funding had started in the early sixties, tens of thousands of medical doctors had passed through medical school, where they had been taught that smoking causes lung cancer. Most believed the lie, but cracks were starting to appear in the paintwork. Even the dullest of straight “C” doctors could not really make the data correlate, and when they queried it were told not to ask stupid questions. “Smoking causes lung cancer” converted to a creed, a quasi religious belief mechanism where blind faith became a substitute for proof.

Even blind faith needs a system of positive reinforcement, which in this case became the advertising agencies and the media. Suddenly the television screens were flooded with images of terribly blackened “smoker’s lungs”, with the accompanying mantra that you will die in horrible agony if you don’t quit now. It was all pathetic rubbish of course. On the mortuary slab the lungs of a smoker and non-smoker look an identical pink, and the only way a forensic pathologist can tell you might have been a smoker, is if he finds heavy stains of nicotine on your fingers, a packet of Camels or Marlboro in your coat pocket, or if one of your relatives unwisely admits on the record that you once smoked the demon weed.



The black lungs? From a coal miner, who throughout his working life breathed in copious quantities of microscopic black coal dust particles. Just like radioactive particles they get caught deep in the tissue of the lungs and stay there forever. If you worked down the coal mines for twenty or more years without a face mask, your lungs will probably look like this on the slab.

Many people ask exactly how it is that those smoking mice were protected from deadly radioactive particles, and even more are asking why real figures nowadays are showing far more non-smokers dying from lung cancer than smokers. Professor Sterling of the Simon Fraser University in Canada is perhaps closest to the truth, where he uses research papers to reason that smoking promotes the formation of a thin mucous layer in the lungs, “which forms a protective layer stopping any cancer-carrying particles from entering the lung tissue.”

This is probably as close as we can get to the truth at present, and it does make perfect scientific sense. Deadly radioactive particles inhaled by a smoker would initially be trapped by the mucous layer, and then be ejected from the body before they could enter the tissue.

All of this may be a bit depressing for non-smokers, but there are probably one or two things you can do to minimize the risks as far as possible. Rather than shy away from smokers in your local pub or club, get as close as you can and breathe in their expensive second-hand smoke. Go on, don’t be shy, suck in a few giant breaths. Or perhaps you could smoke one cigarette or small cigar after each meal, just three a day to build up a thin boundary mucous layer. If you cannot or will not do either of the above, consider phoning Michael Jackson to ask for a spare surgical mask!

Copyright Joe Vialls. 16 July 2003
 
Aha! I was able to fine the original Joe Vialls article in an archive: http://web.archive.org/web/20050214135605/http://vialls.net/transpositions/smoking.html
 
Donnay said:
I didn't go through all the post because there is so many. Here is an article I have a hard copy of, it still may be on the internet, but Joe Vialls died in 2004, I believe and his work is not so easily found.

Hi Donnay, it would be greatly appreciated if you would try to read entire threads before posting in them. This reduces noise on the forum and also allows you an opportunity to learn - which is the whole point! :)
 
Back
Top Bottom