It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

tobacco ...maybe not as bad as we're led to believe

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 08:51 PM
link   
ok first you must keep an open mind about this im not sayign its good but i think weve all been lied to and i can prove it.

! tobaco is highy adictive.

this is a funny statment b/c i recently read a article of a lady smoked sence she was 17 she is curently over 100 and just quit one day b/c she couldent light her own cigs. if she was highly adicted she would have shurly died from that. so lets broaden it why can some quit cold turky and others cant. its simple psycology if you are told its higly adictive you will beleve it. why do some feel withdrawl and others dont. the only reason left once you rule the others out is its in your head.

2 tobaco is a verry verry powerfull biz and they are out to make money

why in the hell would they go along with advertising that there product is adictive??? once agian it makes no sence of what the explanation we are give that the gov makes them. while it is true they do make them say what it does why dont they do it with any other product like beer that ppl have been known to get adicted to. if a company says there product is so higly adictive dont you think that has some impact on peoples mind maby alot more than what we all think. why would any company advertise agianst its products?

3. the same company that makes the cigs. makes the verry expencive products to help you try to quit! they win eather way it a excelent plan think about it! and a intrestign side note why is the quiting aids 50% (almost exactly) efective to help people quit strang number for this type of thing.


just some flaws we have all been told as truth and those who realise what i have are denyed and told how could i have ever thought that and are promptly medacated lol but these flaws are to large to be discounted

while i dont think there AS dangerous and adictive there obvously psychologly adictive if you let them. and are far from safe i lost my grandfather to smokeing but i think the truth is better than to deny they might not be as bad as we have been led to beleve



[edit on 23-3-2006 by parrhesia]




posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 09:34 PM
link   

this is a funny statment b/c i recently read a article of a lady smoked sence she was 17 she is curently over 100 and just quit one day b/c she couldent light her own cigs. its simple psycology if you are told its higly adictive you will beleve it. why do some feel withdrawl and others dont.


Firstly, cigs produce different levels of addiction in different people. I was addiced for 10 years, the only thing that got me off of those cancer sticks was Nicorette Gum(which has Nicotene in it, the active ingredient in Cigs is also what makes it addictive). What does that tell you hmm? Some people genuinely seem immune to addiction of any sort, I know two people like this, and they are envied.



if she was highly adicted she would have shurly died from that.


Are you serious? Where did you here this ludicris piece of faulty logic? Think it up yourself? Addiction doesn't mean that you body needs it to survive. When I quit the "Green stuff" the withdrawl sympoms were slight anxiety for 3 days exactly. When I quit Cigs, the withdrawl symptoms lasted weeks and when I broke down from trying it cold turkey, I turned to a Nicotene substitute.



why in the hell would they go along with advertising that there product is adictive???

Because the Surgeon General mandates it.



while it is true they do make them say what it does why dont they do it with any other product like beer that ppl have been known to get adicted to.

Beer isn't chemically addictive, it's psycholically addictive. People get addicted to what the Alchohol does to them, they don't get addicted to the Hops or Barley or any of the other chemicals in the beer.


if a company says there product is so higly adictive dont you think that has some impact on peoples mind maby alot more than what we all think. why would any company advertise agianst its products?

Do you realize the fight they put up, to avoid those warning labels? You do realize that since those warning labels started to go on the packs, that the number of smokers started to drop rather dramatically? The only age group where the numbers rose was in the 13-18 age group, which is who the Cig companies targetted before they were banned from advertising in my country. Not sure if the same is true in the USA, if it isn't then it should be.


3. the same company that makes the cigs. makes the verry expencive products to help you try to quit! they win eather way it a excelent plan think about it! and a intrestign side note why is the quiting aids 50% (almost exactly) efective to help people quit strang number for this type of thing.

Are you saying the GlaxoSmithKline, the makers of Nicorette, are in the Tobacco industry?
You really should have put some research into this, before posting, as I see lots of leaps of faith on your part, with a little dose of olde time Tobacco Industry propaganda.


while i dont think there AS dangerous and adictive there obvously psychologly adictive if you let them. and are far from safe i lost my grandfather to smokeing but i think the truth is better than to deny they might not be as bad as we have been led to beleve

You mean you're leaps of logic? I pity the soul who actually believes a word you are saying.

One other question, how do you pronounce your name? Is it EngenerQ or EngineerQ?

[edit on 6-3-2006 by sardion2000]



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 10:16 PM
link   
The part about addictiveness is interesting. I just had a thought just now that all of those "Truth" commercials and other anti-smoking commercials. I think they only increase smoking and keep smokers smoking. Because its just more to remind them of smoking and makes them want to light up again.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by joepits
The part about addictiveness is interesting. I just had a thought just now that all of those "Truth" commercials and other anti-smoking commercials. I think they only increase smoking and keep smokers smoking. Because its just more to remind them of smoking and makes them want to light up again.


It's a nice hypothesis, too bad the statistics don't back it up.

www.cbc.ca...



Never Smoked
1977: 45 per cent
1998: 38 per cent

Smoked but quit
1977: 15 per cent
1998: 34 per cent

Current smokers
1977: 45 per cent of males, 35 per cent of females
1998: 29 per cent of males, 27 per cent of females








posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 10:55 PM
link   
i wasnt gona post agian b/c nothing i can say will change your mind and no facts i put infront of you and no amount of logic will sway you but dont go bashing others.

you didnt even adress his theroy you just put some facts up about smoking in canada and aus. not even matching data. tisk. tisk. but he was stating that watchign a ad( thetruth is only in america so you cant use AUS and canada facts!) will make people want to light up agian and he hapens to be 100% correct no matter what you say. its simple psychology introducing a subject(smoking) to a person will make them think about it and if is a psycological adiction (like smoking) it will make the viewer much more likely to smoke then not seeign an ad.

you can pronounce it any way you like most call me Q



[edit on 9-3-2006 by engenerQ]



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 11:30 PM
link   
What facts did you post again? All I saw was conjecture.

BTW We get the Truth ad's up in Canada as well. I'll try to find some more recent smoking trend graphs for you for Canada & the USA. BRB.

[edit on 9-3-2006 by sardion2000]



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 11:40 PM
link   
im shure you do but what channels CNN SCI-FI NBC the american channels?

never said i did but your mind is closed to this topic nothing i can do will change it. or did you come in to this thred with a open mind?



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 11:49 PM
link   


im shure you do but what channels CNN SCI-FI NBC the american channels?


TSN(CND Stations), Space(CND), CBC(CND), Fox, and CNN mostly. I don't get SCI-FI and NBC blows chunks (IMO)



never said i did but your mind is closed to this topic nothing i can do will change it. or did you come in to this thred with a open mind?


I have an open mind to actual fact and figures. Not baseless conjecture.

If you had posted a link to a study from the New England Journal of Medicine that backed up some of your claims then I would be more receptive, but you didn't. You just posted a bunch of stuff in a way that left little doubt that anything that anyone else says to the contrary would change your mind. You're the one who made those dubious statements backed up by nothing but your word. I don't take peoples word for it about anything of a Statistical, Scientific, or Medical basis.

If you wanted a shield against Debunking, you should have posted this in the Skunk Works directory.

[edit on 9-3-2006 by sardion2000]



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 11:54 PM
link   
lol NBC does blow


but ill work on the data as you can imagen it is verry hard to coem by. my statements whernt blind a PHD chemest PHD bio. and a PHD ecologist are there thoughts as well next post ill get more for ya






FIRE lol



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 12:01 AM
link   
I didn't say they were blind, I said they were dubious, as in doubtful.

I can see where these commercials may increase smoking rates in impressionable youths, though with more mature people, it has a significant effect. It did with me.

[edit on 10-3-2006 by sardion2000]



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 01:03 PM
link   
I'm going to give you the brief rundown of a U-mass study conducetd to decipher why cigarettes and smoking cause cancer.

www.erowid.org...


According to U.S. Surgeon General C. Everette
Koop (on national television, 1990) radioactivity, not tar,
accounts for at least 90% of all smoking related lung cancer.
Tobacco crops grown in the United States are fertilized by law
with phosphates rich in radium 226. In addition, many soils have
a natural radium 226 content. Radium 226 breaks down into two long
lived 'daughter' elements -- lead 210 and polonium 210. These
radioactive particles become airborne, and attach themselves to the
fine hairs on tobacco leaves.
Studies have shown that lead 210 and polonium 210 deposits
accumulate in the bodies of people exposed to cigarette smoke.
Data collected in the late 1970's shows that smokers have three
times as much of these elements in their lower lungs as non
smokers. Smokers also show a greater accumulation of lead 210 and
polonium 210 in their skeletons,though no studies have been
conducted to link these deposits with bone cancer. Polonium 210 is
the only component of cigarette smoke which has produced tumors by
itself in inhalation experiments with animals...


The data shows that the effects of tobacco, constrict the airways, causing a radioactive tar "hot-spot." The half life of the radioactive element is 21.5 years, making heavy smokers suceptable to cancer up to 21 years after quitting. Since the tar takes a long time to be digested, the radiactive material, maintains direct contact with lung heart and other such tissues.

My advice, rather than smoke, just jump off a building, at least the death will be quick.



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 05:18 PM
link   
this is totally unrelated to the subject at hand, but well, worth of noting non the less.

Sen. Charles Schumer is now going after the USPS trying to get legislation passed that will make it illegal to send tobacco products through the mail.....got to have their cut of the pay, those nice hefty taxes!!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

just a heads up to all you addicts who are still relying on that "last refuge" to avoid the insane taxes your state has been imposing on your habit. wonder if they realize just how many new yorkers are getting them shipped in from russia and elsewhere overseas......I'd like to see them collect $1000 fine from those countries!!



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Some will say I'm crazy but this is how the tobacco biz has went for the past 60 years. For the first 40 of those years, smoking was hip and cool and a big money maker for numerous corporations. Tobacco was laced with toxic chemicals in order to produce cancer in as many people as possible (body's immune response to toxic wastes). But, people began to figure out what was wrong since the NWO brotherhood wanted all the people to die by 65 years old so no pensions had to be paid to them.

But health care costs were too high and as we entered the last 20 years in the business we also neared the end of the line, the coming of the wave of consciousness. The nicotine in tobacco long known to natives was the opener of the third eye and the lizards and their buddies in the brotherhood could not have the pleebs with their eyes open. So now the push is to shut down tobacco in the first world where people are educated and realtively more powerful. Close the eye else the secret gets out.

Meanwhile in the third world tobacco is being sold like it was here in the 40s and 50s to the poor slobs so that cancer rates can skyrocket over there and keep the population down while making a ton of cash for the globalist brotherhood.

See you don't need a war to be part of this scam, in my opinion.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 11:40 PM
link   
An Addiction has three parts/components.

The actual physical response (the high , the buss, the rush, whatever)

The ritual of preparing "the stuff" (buffing it out, rolling it up, whatever)

The social aspects aspects ("lets blow a gagger and have a chat", " lets go for a coffe and a smoke, etc.)


The new packaging is aimed at reducing social acceptance. Certainly seeing an anti smoking ad will cause you to think about going for a smoke (if that's your addication) but at least it is a negative image.

Well now that I have had to think about it I need to go get coffee, a mirror, some drum, r-papers, and a needle. I sure picked a bad week to clean up clean up my system. i've been edgy and moody all week ...where's my smoke's? Damn, I must have left them in the bar.

Dead steve



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 12:08 AM
link   
IMO the most powerful aspect of addiction to cigarettes is mental. Its more psychologically addictive than anything I have ever known. When I quit using the patch if I was alone I was perfectly fine had no craving for it at all, But if I was around people smoking or in a setting I use to smoke that was by far the hardest even though I was still getting the nicotine through the patch. That did nothing to stop the mental urge when I saw someone smoking.

I think its been proven that addictions actually rewire parts of the brain, creating new pathways and such. Theres still alot we dont understand about the human brain.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 12:13 AM
link   
shadow thx for the post, it is so intresting that you didnt have craveings till you saw others preforming an act. so is it the act or the stuff in it that is more adicting



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Gotta agree with shadow here. I'll not even think about smoking by myself but when I'm out drinking or whatever I'll get through loads. I think, for me, its mostly the social aspect of smoking thats my "addiction". If I'm not with people smoking I won't, but as soon as I am, I will. If I'm away with my family for a week I won't smoke, but as soon as I got back I'll be right back on 'em when we go out for a drink. Also, it took me about two years to feel addicted, and that was, I think, due to the fact my mates told me I was.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by engenerQ
shadow thx for the post, it is so intresting that you didnt have craveings till you saw others preforming an act. so is it the act or the stuff in it that is more adicting


From my experience the act and social aspect was far more addicting then the nicotine. That was the hardest part IMO, This might vary from person to person I cant really say but in my case thats how it was.

Even long after I quit I would find myself every once in awhile putting things in my mouth to , a blade of grass, a pen whatever. So smoking might have given me a "Oral fixation" aswell



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 04:10 PM
link   
I was listening to loveline a few nights ago and heard dr drew talk about addiction being partially genetic. He also mentioned something about woman who like oral gratification usually have this addictive personality. Thought i would throw that in.


In my personal experience with addiction (which i don't seem to get affected by very often) it has always been very easy break away. I have always had too many things to do to sit abd think about going back to what i was doing. I think that has helped me.

In regards to alcohal, there i a physical/chemical addiction hence people who get the shakes if they do not get one. There is also evidence that suggests people who have a history of being depressed will start drinking right after the "bored" phase.

Other people i have know have been addicted to many things. Some running, some vanity, and other subjects that were in no way a hysical addiction but could well be described as "obsessed".

My advice, stay busy enough, but don't overwhelm yourself with things to do if you need help staying on track.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Recent neuroscience studies shed some light on the social aspect.
The social aspect often occurs around the presence of alcohol as well. The new research looks at the combined use of nicotine and alcohol as a separate type of reaction from either of the two drugs (pharmacologically they are drugs) combined. This is similar to the effect of cocaethaline (coc aine and alcohol) and the speedballing effects of other drugs.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join