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.

 

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

page: 3
12
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 03:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Chamberf=6

hey man...I've been smoking additive free tobacco for a year now. I too would really like to know...am I only deluding myself that it's "healthier" than the rest of the poison ?


edit: just realized thread is 5 years old



edit on 24-7-2015 by MarioOnTheFly because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Unit541
reply to post by Terranaut
 


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.


You are totally wrong,
If you are a smoker, statistically speaking, there is a 50% chance that smoking is what is going to kill you. the lung cancer chance alone is 15 percent for a smoker (versus only 0.5 percent for a never smoker)

Life long smokers die on an average 10 years earlier than life long non smokers, this is proven fact.
edit on 24-2-2016 by joseph1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-2-2016 by joseph1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Unit541
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.


Formaldehyde is NOT an additive, Formaldehyde arises in the tobacco combustion process, the smoke from so called "natural tobacco" contains Formaldehyde and thousands of other chemicals too.
www.livescience.com...
edit on 24-2-2016 by joseph1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sourdough4life
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.


You are wrong, most of the carcinogenic chemicals are coming from the tobacco smoke itself. www.livescience.com...
Additive free cigarettes are NOT safer. (you can even read this sentence on the packs)



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:33 PM
link   
I smoke additive free tobacco since a few months , i can tell the difference. I can spend a day without smoking and without the urge to smoke (due to the nicotine). It's less addictive, so you smoke less. It still is tabacco though.
I was a heavy smoker at some point and no exercise done on my part, at times i could feel what i'd describe as micro strokes at night, that's when i've decided to drastically change things a bit => additive free tobacco + some exercise (walk, bycycle etc..)+ more balanced food (less meat, less bread) + vitamins supplements (Azinc)



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: joseph1

No my friend, I'm afraid you've got hold of the wrong end of the stick, which of course was the intention of Tobacco Control. They like to sow confusion because it suits their agenda.

Not sure if I can post links on here because I only stumbled upon this site today, and this is my first post here, but here goes anyway:

object.cato.org...

I suggest you read this. It explains a lot about the commonly held misconceptions about smoking.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: nisakiman

Yep! Actually, research has shown for nearly 20 years that only 1 in 10 smokers will get sick from it.
It's more about genetics than anything.

I did notice when I switched to no-additives that it's really easy to go many hours without puffing. I think it is the additives that make the addiction so bad. When I quit this time (first of April this year), it wasn't bad at all - I had been smoking additive-free stuff.

I noticed the difference when I first switched from Marlboro Lights to another brand. The addiction was much less compelling.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: whaaa

Hey, thanks for the link.

I'm gonna grow some at my homeless camp.




top topics



 
12
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join