Smoking is... good?

  • Thread starter Thread starter morgan
  • Start date Start date
I smoked "normal" cigarettes since the last 10 years.

I always knew that smoking isn´t healthy but i was addicted to them. And I always had an excuse why I need them. Sometimes I tried to role my own cigarettes because I have heard that this is the lesser of the two evils, but the taste was horrible and the will was weak. Last year i have started reading some articles about smoking on this forum and I really saw what am i doing with my body and that really only I am responsible for my health. In April 10, After a walking-holiday, I just bought tobacco without additives and some filters and began to role my own cigarettes. And I never missed "normal" cigarettes.

Last month I tried a hit of a normal cigarette (just for experiment) and i thought my lungs will explode!

Thanks for all the interesting articles!!
 
ines said:
I smoked "normal" cigarettes since the last 10 years.

I always knew that smoking isn´t healthy but i was addicted to them. And I always had an excuse why I need them. Sometimes I tried to role my own cigarettes because I have heard that this is the lesser of the two evils, but the taste was horrible and the will was weak. Last year i have started reading some articles about smoking on this forum and I really saw what am i doing with my body and that really only I am responsible for my health. In April 10, After a walking-holiday, I just bought tobacco without additives and some filters and began to role my own cigarettes. And I never missed "normal" cigarettes.

Last month I tried a hit of a normal cigarette (just for experiment) and i thought my lungs will explode!

Thanks for all the interesting articles!!
Click to expand...

Glad you made the change ines! :cool2: It seems that those cigarettes with additives in them are pretty evil.
Thanks for sharing your experiences.
 
I've run out of my natural cigs a few times and, since they aren't available just anywhere, had to buy my old stand-by, chemically laden brand.

I remember the first time I ran out and had to but my former brand. I was feeling between a rock and a hard place and yet, part of me relished in the thought of at least re-experiencing the sweet flavor. What an anti climax! They did not taste like I remembered and after one cigarette I was starting to feel a little nauseas. I knew I could not smoke two in a row or I would be sick to my stomach. The experience was significant enough to help me better plan my purchasing.

I ran into a cousin on the weekend who smokes Rothman's. He said he remembered a time when the package used to say "natural" on them and wondered if they were, at some point in time, additive free. Anyone know?

Thanks,
Gonzo
 
Gonzo said:
I ran into a cousin on the weekend who smokes Rothman's. He said he remembered a time when the package used to say "natural" on them and wondered if they were, at some point in time, additive free. Anyone know?

Thanks,
Gonzo
Click to expand...

Not sure if they were ever additive free, but the company seems to have gone through several corporate changes over the years according to these two sites:

_http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/Rothmans-UK-Holdings-Limited-Company-History.html

_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothmans_International

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the "formula" was changed. :)
 
I remember having been told by my old Biology teacher that smoking would kill many many little hairs present in my respiratory system, called 'cils vibratiles' in french.
The reason for that would be the HEAT caused by the smoke.

I did not find anything about these in the forum, simply because I do not now the name in English. All I found on the web was the word 'Cilium':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cilium

Would it be possible that these 'cilia' would be destructed ONLY by the well-manufactured paper and additives in cigarettes?
> So smoking natural tobacco would not affect these hairs in a such way?

I realized that all most of my emotionnal baggage regarding smoking (aka 'it is not good to smoke' ) would come from what my teacher told me, ie 'if you smoke you will destruct your body - one cigarette is enough'.

I am maybe/clearly looking for rasons for keeping on smoking, but I would like to know more about the validity of such 'fact'.

Is there any thread on the forum telling specifically about this issue?

Thank you!
 
I have never come across such an idea before. But I don't think the temperature of inhaled smoke is any hotter than sitting inside a sauna. It may be that your teacher was misinformed.

The human body is extremely resilient to extreme temperatures. Just think about those who live in hot climates where temperatures are very similar to what one would experience in a sauna.

As well, most smokers tend to smoke in a 2-stage approach. The first stage pulls the smoke into the mouth and the second stage inhales the smoke contained within the mouth. This method cools the smoke down considerably.

These are merely a few thoughts that crossed my mind that I find reasonable. I certainly don't have any hard science to back them up.

Gonzo
 
Thank you Gonzo.

The sauna example seems quite logical about the heat - it does not make sense.

So.. a good reason for stop smoking would maybe be regarding the paper used?
Even in the case of rolled cigarettes, I would have tu use the common papers - brand 'RIZZLA' or 'OCB'.

Not to speak about the one used in manufactured cigarettes... even in the case of 'natural tobacco' like the 'PUEBLO' brand.
I never came across 'natural paper'!

Regarding the 2-step smoke, when you inhale in such a way there is a considerable amount of smoke that you would inhale at one time.
It is like a 'bust' and when I smoke this way, I would feel kind of 'stone' because of a massive incoming at once.
 
There are several chemical-free rolling papers available through the web and, depending on legislation in your area, possibly in certain niche stores (we used to call them head shops, where they would sell paraphernalia usually associated with marijuana smoking).

If you Google "chemical free"+"rolling papers", you will most likely find something apropos.

Regarding the 2-stage smoking method, I should have been more descriptive for those yet to try smoking.

Generally when people try smoking for the first time, they draw the smoke in a continuous stream into their lungs, which tends to make one cough.

Eventually, most smokers settle on a 2-stage approach, where they suck a small amount of smoke into the mouth the way one would sip a drink through a straw. Then, they would inhale the smoke in their mouth with an open mouth, so that cool air can mis with the smoke, thus diluting and cooling it before it hits the lungs. Each person eventually finds their tolerance level to how much smoke to take in, in the first stage, eventually adjusting it to their optimum comfort level.

Gonzo
 
Eventually, most smokers settle on a 2-stage approach, where they suck a small amount of smoke into the mouth the way one would sip a drink through a straw. Then, they would inhale the smoke in their mouth with an open mouth, so that cool air can mis with the smoke, thus diluting and cooling it before it hits the lungs. Each person eventually finds their tolerance level to how much smoke to take in, in the first stage, eventually adjusting it to their optimum comfort level.
Click to expand...

I was pretty much taught to do it that way, actually I don't see what else you'd really do.
 
Abstract said:
I was pretty much taught to do it that way, actually I don't see what else you'd really do
Click to expand...

The alternative is inhaling directly to the lungs, which usually causes a cough reflex. In drinking, it would be akin to drinking with an open throat instead of swallowing mouthfulls, the method college chug-a-lug contest participants might use (or so I've been told).

To give the one-stage method a try to see why it is generally avoided, suck on a lit cigarette using vacuum generated by the lungs instead of by the tongue, allowing the smoke to move directly into the lungs in a continuous stream and notice the increased level of irritation.

I hope I have explained this sufficiently.

Gonzo
 
Well, I'm glad I was able to convey the method sufficiently that you feel no desire to try it.

Raunchy is the term that comes to mind. Like the difference between and aged single malt scotch and wood grain alcohol.
:)

Gonzo
 
The company I work for has come up with another way to be fascist. In November we update our benefits selections. This year everyone will be required to take a "No Tobacco" pledge. No tobacco of any kind, smoke or no smoke.

If one agrees to the pledge there is a substantial discount to medical coverage. If one declines tobacco quitting programs will either be offered or required not sure which at this point.

Of course, it didn't occur to these goose steppers to do a little in depth research about tobacco use and the fact that most of the health problems associated with smoking come from the additives in main brand cigarettes.

Talk about invasion of our lives! :curse: The whole system there is very emotionally draining enough. (No doubt by design.)

I've been smoking for about 6 months now and love it. I'm healthier, clearer headed and feel better than when I started.

Here I stand. :cool2: :rockon:

Mac
 
Just remember, sometimes strategic enclosure required lying. Mind you, getting caught in a lie has its downsides.

I had considered (imagined, more like it) that if my employer were to have forced smoke cessation programs, I would just take them, fail miserably and get diagnosed a severe addict requiring an expensive hospital stay pumped full of sedatives to help me deal with the withdrawal. The cost of such hospitalization would be more expensive than the employer paying the premium difference.

Of course, this was just me daydreaming and the dream did not involve them calling my bluff.

However, depending on the jurisdiction, there could actually be rights for addicts (since addiction is a "disease", according to many). You can't discriminate against people with diseases any more than you could someone with a disability - but only in certain countries.

Gonzo
 
Gonzo said:
Just remember, sometimes strategic enclosure required lying. Mind you, getting caught in a lie has its downsides.

I had considered (imagined, more like it) that if my employer were to have forced smoke cessation programs, I would just take them, fail miserably and get diagnosed a severe addict requiring an expensive hospital stay pumped full of sedatives to help me deal with the withdrawal. The cost of such hospitalization would be more expensive than the employer paying the premium difference.

Of course, this was just me daydreaming and the dream did not involve them calling my bluff.

However, depending on the jurisdiction, there could actually be rights for addicts (since addiction is a "disease", according to many). You can't discriminate against people with diseases any more than you could someone with a disability - but only in certain countries.

Gonzo
Click to expand...

Hi, Gonzo:

I haven't decided if I will take the pledge or not. Only a few there know I use tobacco and I don't smoke in the parking lot as others do. If confronted later I could say that I just started because of stresses at home.

We'll see how it goes.

Mac
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom