A comprehensive review of the many health benefits of smoking Tobacco

[TargeT]

Posted by norman (here)
Second hand smoke is a great catch-all for those cancer deaths that the radioactive particles got to, even though they were not smokers.

I think I can guess well enough that when a smoker dies, the death goes in the smoking death column. it sounds like the way things are would be done. Climategate for smoking.

I'll not be surprised if that's the case (which it is starting to look like it is)...

I'm now just assuming that everything I've been told is a lie and I have to find out for myself what the real situation is (as best I can, often I still have to rely on studies and reports done by others, which feels like I'm using the "appeal to authority" falacy, so I make sure and read the studies too and see if i can understand it).

All of this takes a lot of effort though, sometimes (ok, a lot... haha) I just drink beer

[betoobig]

to me smoking is a way to add the fire element to the body (allready with earth, wind and water), spiritualy talking.
much love

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by TargeT (here)

Posted by norman (here)
Second hand smoke is a great catch-all for those cancer deaths that the radioactive particles got to, even though they were not smokers.

I think I can guess well enough that when a smoker dies, the death goes in the smoking death column. it sounds like the way things are would be done. Climategate for smoking.

I'll not be surprised if that's the case (which it is starting to look like it is)...

I'm now just assuming that everything I've been told is a lie and I have to find out for myself what the real situation is (as best I can, often I still have to rely on studies and reports done by others, which feels like I'm using the "appeal to authority" falacy, so I make sure and read the studies too and see if i can understand it).

All of this takes a lot of effort though, sometimes (ok, a lot... haha) I just drink beer

I assume the stats are similar to how the stats on flu deaths are assembled. In some models - the difference between summer months deaths and winter months death = death by flu. In another model, if the person died while influenza virus had been present (maybe say just after receiving the flu shot), then that person also died of the flu.

Usually these useless models are combined to get more useless and inaccurate stats, but it serves someone's purpose. Health Canada reports that 8000+ people die every year from the flu, while actual confirmed cases is usually only a couple hundred if even that. I imagine that smoking stats are gathered in similar ways, and potentially with similar results.

I'm not trying to defend nicotine addiction as being "not harmful" - it is definitely potentially harmful long term, but again here I draw a distinction between long term nicotine addiction and the "smoking of tobacco", not the same.

[Callista]

Posted by Basho (here)

Posted by Callista (here)
I am a firm believer in the beneficial qualities of tobacco. Here is an interesting article about a Doctor in Indonesia who uses the sacred herb to treat various ailments - of course it has to be organic for obvious reasons.

http://www.mercurydetox.net/dr-gretha-zahar.html

Tobacco is abused & not treated as a sacred plant, the way people that live life in harmony with nature do. I guess we can say that about most things these days.

There's a saying that tobacco is the greatest trick played by the Native American to the white man. Their great revenge..

All the natural sacred substances have been perverted and manipulated to cause the maximum amount of harm to the planet and its inhabitants. Tobacco has been polluted just like the water and the soil and the atmosphere. Tobacco is regarded by indigenous people as a sacred major Teaching plant and 'the powers that were' dont want us using it. In its natural state it is a blessing, but when chemicals are added, it is a curse.

[Justplain]

A doctor told me once that if he saw someone with a persistent cough, they were more often than not a smoker. Tobacco stinks up your breath, cloths, your house, everything. I question the health benefits of smoking anything, tobacco, weed, crack or whatever. Our poor lungs have to deal with air pollutants which is terrible enough. And tobacco, atleast that sold in retail, is extremely addictive. It took me several attempts over five years to quit. I know there may be a less harmful, organic tobacco, but please dont buy this line on this crappy plant. Dont smoke anything, do your body a favour.

[Frankie Pancakes]

I have to ask again. Did you read the article?

[lucidity]

Posted by TargeT (here)

Posted by norman (here)
Second hand smoke is a great catch-all for those cancer deaths that the radioactive particles got to, even though they were not smokers.

I think I can guess well enough that when a smoker dies, the death goes in the smoking death column. it sounds like the way things are would be done. Climategate for smoking.

I'll not be surprised if that's the case (which it is starting to look like it is)...

I'm now just assuming that everything I've been told is a lie and I have to find out for myself what the real situation is (as best I can, often I still have to rely on studies and reports done by others, which feels like I'm using the "appeal to authority" falacy, so I make sure and read the studies too and see if i can understand it).

All of this takes a lot of effort though, sometimes (ok, a lot... haha) I just drink beer

You're trolling this thread...
you're taking a deliberately contrary position, presumably, for the attention it renders.
How many years before you grow out of this type of behaviour ?

be happy ;-)

[TinFoilSuit]

This is truly a fascinating topic that I've often wondered about.

My questions:

- Since we can point to numerous examples that seem to indicate that improving public health is not an honest priority of most governments, why are there then so many government funded ads/pamphlets/PSAs spotlighting the dangers of smoking? I.e. who are you and what have you done with the real government, mister?

- How effective are all these campaigns in actually curtailing smoking behavior?

- Given that the tobacco industry is not allowed to market their products on television in the US (not sure if this holds for the rest of the world), is it possible that many of these anti-smoking campaigns actually serve as an insidious means of free consumer advertising? Many of these anti-smoking ads actually show people in the act of smoking - isn't this an immediate visual stimulus that might give rise to cravings? Addiction isn't exactly something that appeals to logic, no matter how many scary statistics you may throw at it. If you were trying to convince a crackhead about the ills of his damaging habit, would you start by showing him an image of someone else blazing, then throwing a bunch of stats at him?

Also, here's an interesting take. Among other points, it highlights a study that indicates that stress causes cravings (i.e. threat of death in anti-smoking ads)!

Of course, the aforementioned does not account for all forms of anti-smoking ads. Perhaps different messages are being communicated to varying demographics. I.e. "For those of you addicted smokers, we know you can't resist these, but you shouldn't do it". But "For those of you occasional smokers that are more concerned for your health (& possibly looking into purer forms of tobacco), don't do any of it cuz it'll kill ya."

Anyways, just throwing some darts.

Cheers!

TFS

[gini]

75% Smoke. 0% Cancer. What Are They Doing That You're Not?´ 5/5/26--

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=kRCGkcKNVaI

75% of one population smoke tobacco. Their lung cancer rate? Virtually zero. The smoking-cancer story falls apart.

In 1964 the Surgeon General told us smoking causes cancer. Full stop. But 85 to 90% of lifelong smokers never get lung cancer at all. So what's actually going on? Why does an entire country with 80%+ smoking rates have lower lung cancer than countries that smoke less? And why did a Nobel Prize-winning discovery from 1931 about mitochondria, the Warburg effect, and the real cause of cancer get quietly buried in mainstream oncology?

In this video I walk through the metabolic theory of cancer, why your physiological insulin resistance and metabolic health may matter more than your habits, and why the question 'does smoking cause cancer' is the wrong question entirely. The truth about cancer is more uncomfortable, and far more empowering, than the slogan you've been taught.

This is not a defence of smoking. Smoking is harmful. But if you only walk away from this video knowing one thing about cancer prevention, I want it to be the right thing. -- -- --What you'll learn:
🔬 Why the 1964 cancer narrative needs refining
🌍 The two populations that break the smoking-cancer link
⚡ The Warburg effect and the metabolic theory of cancer
🧬 Why mitochondria may be the real story
🚭 The difference between nicotine, tobacco, and a commercial cigarette
🥩 What to actually do to lower cancer risk, whether you smoke or not

Timestamps:
0:00 The 1964 report nobody re-reads
2:20 The 85% nobody talks about
3:19 A doctor walked into a Pacific island
5:39 A metabolic profile that breaks the rules
5:55 When 80% of a country smoked
7:23 The biologist rewriting cancer
8:26 A Nobel Prize buried in 1931
9:52 The reframe that changes everything
10:49 The experiment that flips a tumour
11:26 7,000 chemicals vs one plant
13:10 The compound that isn't actually a carcinogen
14:14 Putting the pieces together
17:18 What to actually do
20:22 Question the narrative

[rgray222]

If you are buying processed over-the-counter cigarettes, you are actually buying and ingesting a chemical cocktail meant to give you a lifelong addiction. The idea that you are actually smoking tobacco is foolish. As with most things in life, moderation and organic substance are probably not a bad thing.

Some of the content below was generated by AI.

Cigarettes contain approximately 600 known additives that are mixed into the tobacco during manufacturing. When these ingredients are burned, they create more than 7,000 chemical compounds in the resulting smoke.

Among these thousands of chemicals, at least 250 are known to be harmful, and 69 are carcinogenic (known to cause cancer). Major toxins found in cigarette smoke include carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide, ammonia, and arsenic. While many additives are approved for food use, they were not tested for safety when burned, leading to the formation of new toxic substances during combustion.

[Mike Gorman]

I began smoking cigarettes non-regularly at the age of 11, it was not until I went to high school that this became more habitual, say 15 years. These days I only smoke one type of Tobacco, a dark blend which comes from the Netherlands, this has a minimum of chemical additives, I roll my own fairly slim ciggies, no filter, approx 5-8 per day, I turn 68 on the 21st May, my health is OK, I probably do not have the best 'wind' I don't run anywhere, I walk often. I enjoy smoking my Dutch Tobacco, I have no plans to quit.

[shaberon]

The American Cancer Society is one of the biggest frauds ever descended on mankind.


Tobacco is, perhaps, moderately useful against free radicals.

We just went through a year, perhaps, where all the stores had to post signs about judgments against RJ Reynolds, Phillip Morris, and a few others, about how cigarettes were "designed" for addiction, etc., because the tobacco was only a vehicle for so many chemical sprays, you'd never know what it really is.

So, in that sense, the main health risks are American additives. The main benefits are, possibly, psychological.


The next thing that is true is since it was so "harmful", it was banned in public. Until then, it was common in restaurants to have smoking and non-smoking sections. Someone that was a waiter somewhere explained it to me like this:


"I don't smoke. I don't like smoking. But I work in the smoking section, because those people have far less issues like screaming children, and, if the service is good, they are more relaxed and they tip better."


On the other hand, some people get so judgmental against it, they are simply really uptight, and therefor probably a bit unbearable with regards to most things.