Additive free tobacco vs. the majority of commercial tobacco. "Better"?

Very interesting and informative posts. You know, reading these got me to thinking of the father of one of my friends way back in college.

He had some sort of digestive problem--what is was I can't remember anymore. Their family was Romanian and his doctor back in the "old country" had prescribed for him to smoke a cigarette (hand rolled) after he ate a meal.

I do remember that he said since he started doing that, he hadn't suffered from the problems he had anymore. This was several years after his doctor told him to smoke after meals. The only time the problem occured anymore was when he was somewhere that he couldn't smoke after eating.

That was the only time he smoked too--it was his "medicine".

Doc Velocity quote:

Yeah, and one of the little secrets that the anti-tobacco crusaders don't want publicized is that only about 15% of tobacco smokers ever actually die of smoking-related illness. (That's from the CDC)

Meaning that about 85% of tobacco smokers keep right on puffing until they're killed by something else, such as a car wreck or a piano falling on their heads.

But, if your intent is to destroy the tobacco industry, you claim that tobacco always causes cancer and strokes and emphysema and birth defects.

Which it certainly does not.

— Doc Velocity

I didn't realise that, Doc

Thank you for posting that information

It's so astounding that I believe it's deserving of its own quote box


Have to say, I feel that the combination of diesel fumes, Chemtrails, general pollution, benzene in petrol, particles from millions of rubber tyres being spat into the air, etc. .... are at least as dangerous as cigarette smoking

Yet we see health-nuts cycling for miles along fume/benzene/rubber bits-filled air in peak hour. And they go troppo if they see someone smoking a filtered cigarette 500 metres away

Another alarming little tit-bit published in the Australian media on the eve of the introduction of lead-free petrol a couple of decades ago is this: authorities admitted that the benzene in lead-free petrol would ... WOULD ... result in an 8% increase in breast-cancer

So they knew what it would do. And hot on the tail of that bit of information came the Mammogram Industry -- which spends tens of thousands of dollars per annum in our little neck of the woods alone --- trying to terrify women to attend a mammogram screening. And no surprise, those screenings result in tens of thousands of women being informed BY the Mammogram INDUSTRY that they have a 'lump' or some other thing that needs further examination. Which in turn usually leads to biopsy, then mastectomy

Nice little earner. Even though the Mammogram INDUSTRY has been forced to pull in its greedy horns, since which time it's rather quietly agreed ... ' Ok. We won't push the yearly mammogram thingo. We'll be good and tell them they only need to have it done every few years. You happy now ? '

And now they've moved onto the testicular cancer Industry. The Prostate Cancer Industry. The Melanoma Industry. All nice little earners. Terrifying and chopping bits out of people as the governments pay their exhorbitant costs. And gee, the info concerning the fact that 'sun screens' actually encourage melanomas gets lost in all that media spin about the length of some idiot movie star's finger nails, etc. etc

These are industries, run by giant corporations working hand in glove with Big Pharma and governments. With the same fat cats getting richer as they terrify populations at the same time they sicken them


So thank you for posting the truth about the 'cigarettes will kill you' campaign, Doc Velocity. Nice to see some truth emerge every now and again

[edit on 29-5-2010 by Dock9]



Edited to Star and Flag this thread

[edit on 29-5-2010 by Dock9]

Originally posted by Dock9
So thank you for posting the truth about the 'cigarettes will kill you' campaign, Doc Velocity. Nice to see some truth emerge every now and again

And please understand that I say that as someone who was just told, three days ago, that my stroke was "caused by" smoking.

I paid meticulous attention to the tests being performed on me all day Wednesday — meaning, I watched the echocardiogram as it was performed (a 30-minute exam), I watched the technician's reactions, and I asked as many pertinent questions as I was able. Similarly, I observed the ultrasound carotid doppler scans (a 40-minute exam) and asked questions. I also asked for (and received) a full copy of my CAT scan, which was provided to me on CD in its own stand-alone application, so I could actually play back the layer-by-layer reconstruction of my brain on my own computer.

I don't pretend to be a specialist in any of these fields; but, in all of these examinations, the specialists with whom I later consulted said that I was in amazing health for a smoker of some 32 years. They were admiring the strength and rhythm of my heart, the clarity of my arteries (in spite of my cholesterol level), and the apparently minimal damage caused to my brain by the stroke.

Yet my personal physician, in compiling these overwhelmingly positive results, arrived at the conclusion that my smoking was the cause of the stroke. His rationale?

Well, nicotine constricts blood vessels, thus increasing the heart rate, thus increasing the blood pressure, in addition to sending those soothing little nicotine molecules directly to receptors in your brain. This increase in circulatory activity "undoubtedly" dislodged a minute particle of plaque in one of my carotid arteries, he said, which was delivered directly into my brain, thereby blocking a minute blood vessel and precipitating the stroke event.

He was postulating, of course. He jumped right to the smoking conclusion, is my guess, because he's been harping on my tobacco intake for nearly 2 years now. And this was his opportunity to say, "See? I told you."

Yet, as far as I could see — and, again, I'm not a specialist — the results of my examinations did not point to any particular cause for the event. The specialist reviewing my echocardiogram, for example, had to ask if I was a smoker, because the images, she said, were amazingly clear of the typical damage caused by smoking. My lungs, said another specialist, were "in better shape" than hers. And she was only in her 30s.

But, out of all these glowing reports, my personal physician arrived at smoking. Not because the results told him that, but because he was predisposed to condemn my smoking.

I'll say this, however — at the age of 50, and learning that I'm in extraordinary physical condition, I'm going to heed his advice and give up smoking now. I see this as a crossroads. I've had my fun for some 32 years, and now I think I'll quit while I'm ahead. Can't hurt.

— Doc Velocity

reply to post by Doc Velocity


American spirit is not additive free. It still has to adhere to FDA guidelines. If you want pure tobacco you need to grow it yourself in the end. But you are right about the tricks many of the 'large' tobacco companies use, one is making the nicotine more bio available, adding ammonia allows more nicotine to hit the bloodstream before combustion, making it more addictive basically.

[edit on 30-5-2010 by Solomons]

I have recently begun to use snus, which is originally a Swedish method of tobacco preparation. Interestingly, I have have read claims that Sweden has lower instances of mouth and lung cancer than other countries whose population sticks with cigarettes and dip/snuff. And, supposedly snus users in Sweden allegedly have no higher instance of cancer than non-users.
I hope to get some actual Swedish snus online soon. So far I've only been using the Camel and Marlboro brands which have an inferior taste and likely more additives.

reply to post by Chamberf=6


Thank you for this thread.
You have stomped on my dreams somewhat as this was the subject of what was going to be my first ATS thread.

In Australia government have enforced a mandatory structure for the packaging of cigarettes.

Looking at my partners packet one third the front of the pack is embellished with a picture of a gangrene foot with the caption smoking causes peripheral vascular disease.
The same image covers half the space on the back.
The side proclaims in bullet form
*Smoking exposes you to more than 40 toxic chemicals
*These chemicals cause damage to blood vessels, body cells and the immune system
*QUIT NOW to reduce your risk of illness or premature death

40 chemicals in every cigarette.
And yet the cultivation of pure, natural tobacco for personal use is prohibited by law

Obviously this is directly related to the fact that in Australia, taxes presently comprise 68% of the total cost of cigarettes.
The government do not want for anyone to quit, they gain far too much in the way of tax revenue.
The reason they have enforced these regulations is simple.
They wish to appear to be concerned, to appease the increasingly aggressive sentiment in the wider population towards smoking and smokers which is fueled by misinformation and propaganda.

The government and the media constantly proclaims that smoking related illness has become a massive strain on our (mostly free) health-care system,causing much rage within the tax paying community that is directed at "filthy smokers".
Had those outraged tax payers bothered to do a little fact checking before launching a sanctimonious tirade about the bill they foot for others habits they may feel they have been deceived.

Contrary to popular belief smoking, even after the overestimated health bill has been taken into consideration nets a huge government profit.
This a subject that is explored in more depth in my partners thread from earlier this year.See link below.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 29-8-2010 by mumma in pyjamas]

One of my guitarists is an alternative medicine-ist and a major conspiracy theorist. That aside, he switched over to Nat Sherman cigarettes a while back. Quite expensive but all natural, even free from those FSC devices in modern cigs. They last longer, taste better and reduce the desire to chain smoke. The wife got a hold of one recently and commented much the same as I did. I sound like I'm shilling here but there does indeed seem to be a major difference between commercial vs. natural tobacco.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


That is a name I am not familiar with. Is Nat Sherman more a regional product or is it nationally available?
I am liking American Spirit Organic loose tobacco at the moment. Although at first it might seem expensive, in the long run it actually saves me money.


[edit on 30/8/2010 by Chamberf=6]

reply to post by tombanjo


they had to remove the warning lable on the bottom of the cans since it held no truth to it at all,

I smoke pipes and use nasal snuff tobacco (along with an occasional cigar). I have never experienced any of the addictive qualities that are so widely reported by people smoking cigarettes. I sometimes go for days or weeks with no tobacco and have no problems in doing so. Cigarette smokers are not addicted to nicotine but rather the chemicals added to the tobacco by the 'big tobacco' companies. They are designed to be extremely addictive, which I believe tobacco in itself is inherently not.

For the sake of discussion, lets just pick a single additive common to most commercial cigarettes. Let's pick a real one, how about Formaldehyde.

I really don't think we need a double blind study to conclude that inhaling tobacco smoke with formaldehyde in it will adversely affect your health to a greater extent than tobacco smoke by itself would.

Additive Free Tobacco
It's great for when you want to die that little bit slower!

Terra

Originally posted by Dock9
Yeah, and one of the little secrets that the anti-tobacco crusaders don't want publicized is that only about 15% of tobacco smokers ever actually die of smoking-related illness. (That's from the CDC)

So.. Let me get this straight...

If someone said each time you cross the road, you have a 15% chance of being splattered by a truck, would you call those acceptable odds?

If if 15% of planes fell out of the sky each day, would you travel by plane?

Hmmmm... I think some of you guys are thinking with your addiction!

Terra!

[edit on 30/8/2010 by Terranaut]

reply to post by Terranaut


That's not what he's saying. What he's saying, is that it's a fallacy to simply say "if you smoke, tobacco is going to kill you". He then went on to provide the actual statistic indicating only 15% of smokers die of a smoking related ailment, as opposed to 100% of smokers being killed by a smoking related ailment, as mainstream society would have you believe.

Statistically, you have a 20% chance of dying of heart disease, whether you smoke or not.

If you are a smoker, statistically speaking, there is a 15% chance that smoking is what is going to kill you. That means the forecast calls for 85% chance of dying of something else.

Since the chance of death is 100% anyway, I'll take that risk in an effort to get the most out of my time here, as I truly enjoy smoking. If it means I'm going to check out 6 years earlier, then so be it. I kinda want to skip the adult diaper years anyway.

Granted, I'd likely change my tune if I found myself in a position like Doc. V.'s, but until then, you'll find me in the smoking section.

Never did he say smoking doesn't come with a risk. Look, a hell of a lot more than 15% of all drivers will be involved in a traffic accident during their driving 'careers', does that mean we shouldn't drive? No, we know that if we drive, we might get in an accident. We smokers know that we're taking a health risk by smoking. What the Doc is pointing out though, is that there is a lot of smoke (no pun...) and mirrors when it comes to accurate information regarding the health affects of smoking, and what exactly in the smoke, is causing harm, and to what extent.

What do you think would kill you faster? Inhaling the fumes of burning tobacco, or inhaling the fumes of burning tobacco with formaldehyde, urea and ethylene glycol as well?

I knew a gal (we'll call her "Sally") who smoked a pack a day for 5 years, and died of lung cancer. Her mother died of lung cancer as well, but never smoked. Was Sally's lung cancer a result of smoking? It's pretty easy to say it was, why would anyone argue?

Then again, there's my grandfather, who smoked a pack a day of non-filtered smokes every day of his life from the age of 17, until he died at 94. Oh, and he was struck by lightning while fishing, and I don't think his lucky-strikes had anything to do with the electrical discharge from the sky that finally ended his time here.

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

That is a name I am not familiar with. Is Nat Sherman more a regional product or is it nationally available?
I am liking American Spirit Organic loose tobacco at the moment. Although at first it might seem expensive, in the long run it actually saves me money.

Nat Shermans are commercially available and I just recently saw some in a convenience store. Prior to this they were typically sold out of cigar/tobacco shops. Try them!

[edit on 1-9-2010 by traditionaldrummer]

In the China study, the analysis of blood samples shows that plasma cotinine (a nicotine metabolite from tobacco smoking) is inversely associated with diseases of affluence including lung cancer

inversely associated inversely associated inversely associated inversely associated inversely associated inversely associated inversely associated inversely associated inversely associated inversely associated inversely associated inversely associated inversely associated inversely associated inversely associated inversely associated inversely associated inversely associated inversely associated inversely associated


Take that non smokers.

Smoke doesn't cause cancer, toxic carcinogenic chemicals added to cigarettes do.

reply to post by Doc Velocity


Sorry to hear of your misfortune. How many of your ancestors had the same problems I wonder?

I am beginning to lean toward believing that the anti-smoking movement is an experiment in social manipulation.. Please read on.

ANTI-SMOKING MOVEMENT "BLOWING SMOKE TO LEVY A LUXURY TAX" ?

The following link leads us deeper into the "Smoking-causes-lung-cancer~Or does it?" conundrum. This is the link to the publication of a German study in an apparently legitimate medical journal that states lung cancer and colon cancer are due strictly to Darwinian selection.

cancerres.aacrjournals.org...

Hmmm.

This jogged my memory about reading a few months ago about a British clinical study of smokers, of non-smokers regularly exposed to second-hand-smoke and of non-smokers who were not subjected to second hand tobacco smoke. The study's objective was to determine if lung cancer was caused by smoking or genetic factors.

This study's conclusions were the same as the German study:

No statistically significant connection between tobacco smoking or secondary exposure to lung cancer.

So there ARE clinical trials that seem to chop the anti-smoking movement off at the knees.


Here's another link about nicotine to further confuse the issue:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's all just very strange. Suddenly we who not so long ago were defined as "victims seduced into addiction by dastardly tobacco companies" are being shamed, hounded and then TAXED disproportionately because we continue to smoke cigarettes.

(By strange contrast, the right to be a morphine addict is supported by tax dollars in methadone clinics all over. How weird is that?)

The evidence --clinical evidence--justifying this brutal anti-smoking campaign is questionable according to MY family history.

Most of my relatives are or were pretty heavy tobacco users. NO incidence of lung cancer or facial or bone or throat cancer in the past 4 generations. Average age of death probably 80+ years, with a few living into mid-90s and over 100 and dying, as they say, of old age. Predisposition to cancer of kidney, colon and heart attack--and dying of old age.

I've smoked 40 OF MY 62 years. About a pack a day, menthol, going to light cigarettes around age 30.
Further, I was an acute asthmatic as a child. (Again, a family early childhood predisposition that cleared up when I became a teenager).
X-rays of my lungs when I was about 45 led the doctor to ask if I was a smoker or not, (I had said I was), that he couldn't tell by looking at my chest xrays.

I smoke 100% natural menthol cigarettes now (for the past 3 years). I don't have a cough. I don't have breathing problems. I have recently come to believe I have a goiter due to hypothyroidism (genetic), but I haven't been to a doctor in 15 years, so I don't know for sure. I don't take medications for anything, but I do take vitamins on and off.

I do have a (genetic predisposition) to high blood pressure, so I gave up caffeine some years back. I wish I could give up overeating...lol. I'm about 40 pounds overweight (family trait too..sigh)...arghh..!

Now THERE is a problem that ALSO has a direct link to my behavior!!

Perhaps lthis whole scenario is a result of a hurried meeting in D.C::

"HEY! WE need more tax money! Let's tax alcohol...wait..no, too many influential folks drink. How about a LUXURY tax? Appropriate in this blighted economy, right? WAIT!. The people buying those high ticket cars, yachts and jets -- they pretty much run the show..let's not bite the hands that feed us. Hmm....Who CAN we tax and get away with it?

Oh yeah! SMOKERS! Easy money~ most are middle class or below and are too busy making ends meet to fight us. YEAH! That's the ticket!"

Who knows....

Check out the links and to all,
kindest regards and thanks for reading my comment!

why not go to a head shop, buy a bag of cut tobacco and roll your own cigarettes? I don't know the science of growing tobacco, but I'm pretty sure the tobacco you buy at a smoke shop is additive free and basically as close as you can get to the crop as possible. You can also buy your own rolling machine and make perfectly rolled cigarettes--minus the nicotine.

I'm a smoker, I only ever smoke roll your own tobacco, but buy commercial branded tobacco products.

I've gone through many different periods of smoking, sometimes heavily, sometimes less then ten a day, at one stage I only smoked a pipe, and I have given up completely for quite long periods.

I don't really buy in to a lot of the paranoia about smoking, but I do have a history (on my fathers side) of lung cancer in the family, so smoking is probably a pretty stupid thing for me to be doing.
I do however have pretty good empirical data (from my own perspective) that it isn't doing me any good, If i stop smoking for a few months I can go for a 3 mile run without even breaking a sweat, when I'm in a heavy smoking period I can barely make it up the stairs to my 3rd floor apartment.

I wonder, does anyone know when all of the additives were first added into cigarettes? Is it a recent (last 50 years) thing or before that?

I am curious if a study has ever been done on how many carcinogens come from using a butane lighter, as opposed to the tabacco. I know that many cigar smokers use a piece of cedar to light up, with claims that it helps preserve flavor, ie butane can kill tastebuds. There is also a big push in the herb smoking community for using hemp wicks to light up. I am just wondering if there is any "scientific" evidence to support or denounce these claims