It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 01:51 PM
The problem isn't the tobacco in's all the other chemicals which are mixed in including:

Stricknyne (sp?)
Formaledehyde (sp?)

etc....there are over 400 chemical additives in cigarettes.

If cigarettes are not harmful then why won't big tabacco release the chemical make up of cigarettes and other tabacco products?

Yes I am a pack a day smoker....................

posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 02:10 PM
Do you have any links carlwfbird, im quite interested on the topic.

Smoking is quite interesting topic, I mean I hate cigarette smoke, yet 2 pints of lager and i'll be smoking them like they've gone out of fashion

I feel I do have quite an addictive personality, I mean I get itchy feet if I don't go to the pub, I used to smoke 20 a day (but as above I have quite (ish!)), I gamble fruit machines (and the like) and yes it does seem fairly genetic.. similar family members have similar traits.

By addiction however I do not mean throwing your life away.. but we all have similar habits that i'm sure we'll never kick. Instead of genetics do you think it is more environmental where your upbringing determines your habits?

posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 02:55 PM
I should have clarified this earlier.
All of this is from "Neuropharmacology: From Cellular Receptors and Neurotranmitter Synthesis to Treatments for Neuropathology & Drug Addiction" by Daniel J Calcagnetti, Ph.D. (daniel @

In dealing with dependence (addiction), there are two ways to look at it
Psycholofical vs physical

Physical dependence is when the body has adapted to function in a stable manner only when the drug is onboard.

Use of desired drug would stop physical phenomenon (in your case the shaking you described)
Psychological dependence is a measure of thought compulsions about the drug at all times when the user is not taking the drug.
This refers to all drugs, not only tobacco.

What I addressed earlier is a new type of dependence that is being investigated. Some call it co-dependence, others call it syndergy.
I myself am not a smoker. I tried half of a cigarrette in highschool where I promptly coughed up a lung like a little girl - but give me three beers or more and I feel like lighting up. It is this phenomenon that perhaps the action of one drug (it could also be the second hand smoke) changes neuronal processing for secondary drug usage - the so-called gateway drug (which term I hate using since it is so often misused)

Furthermore there is also cross-dependence that is related to co-dependence. Some drugs are able to suppress, elivate or reduce the effects of another drug that can produce dependence as well. This is like trading a greater evil for a lesser evil. Examples include giving a person suffering from alcohol some valium in order to reduce the effects of alcohol, or by combining alcohol with coc aine (stimulant and depressant yields effects that can be found online but cannot be posted here due to forum policy)

posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 03:01 PM
Unadulterated tobacco is probably for most intents and purposes a harmless substance that would provide known mental stimulation.

The toxic sludge used in the processing of tobacco that goes in most products sold should make such producers akin to mass murderers.

I sometimes think that the tobacco industry gets paid to take toxic sludge from other polluting industries and it just dumps it right in there with the ol' tabaccky so that they can poison all those people. This makes tobacco bad stuff and kills a lot of people.

Remember that when the white man came to the Americas, tobacco had been in use for 100s if not 1000s of years. Cancer was unknown to natives even though large amounts of tobacco was smoked during religious ceremonies.

So what is going on here anyways?

posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 03:09 PM
Nowadays sweetners are used aren't they? Is it something in the sweetening process?

Do people agree with the banning of smoking in all public areas (UK)? With such cravings are existent with alcohol do people actually think it will be enforced successfully? I do think many people have rights and I would never smoke on public transport.. but a pub? A place where many people smoke social and addicts.. I somehow can't see it being enforced.

posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 03:24 PM
All I can say is, it's killing me.
I've smoked for twenty + years, and right now, I wish I hadn't.

Please stop smoking.

When you hug your grandkids kids in fifty years, you'll thank me, and John Wayne and numerous other folk I wish were around when I picked up that nasty habit.

[edit on 5-4-2006 by superhooptyratchetclanker]

posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 03:56 PM
True, the majority of tobacco problems are caused by the other elements in the products. However pure nicotine is linked to atherosclerosis.
It also increases the heart rate and the work it does while other elements in tobacco products, like Carbon monoxide reduce the ammount of oxygen reaching the heart.

I could go into more details on the pharmacological process of pure nicotine if anyone is interested.

posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 04:53 PM
then what about cigars they do not add such chemicals, and how do you explane the exact same data for cigs than cigars. i once read a article that stated that cigar sokers are more at risk for lung cancer......crazy

posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 04:57 PM
Tar levels are higher in cigars I think - tar is the promoter of cancers as well as a problem for other things

posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 05:55 PM
I agree with everything sardion2000 said. Your body doesn't need it, your body just wants it really really bad. That's basically want addiction is...something you want really fact the dictionary says...

# noun: an abnormally strong craving
# noun: being abnormally tolerant to and dependent on something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming (especially alcohol or narcotic drugs)

posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 05:59 PM
Ahh but there is the problem the tobacco used is the same but there is more in 1 cigar then 1 cig obviously lol. But the carcinogens are heat activated and the smoke in cigars is much much cooler then those of cigarettes. But what worries me is the statements used when cigars and cigarettes are compared….they say cigars cause just as much lung damage…how is that b/c you don’t inhale cigar smoke and the second had is minimal far far less then cigarettes. Maby the people who are trying to “save” us are lying to us just as much as those big companies.

posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 09:41 PM
engineerQ - remember that second hand smoke from a cigarrette is also harmful. Second hand smoke from a cigar is even worse. 1) because of the extra tobacco. 2) because there is less of it in the lungs on the first breath. I do not smoke, but I think the difference in the concentration of second hand smoke from cigars is a contributing factor.

posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 11:09 PM
i do think your correct but i dont see many chain smokers for cigars so what would be the smoking frequency

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in