You'll live just as long if you drink and smoke

Originally posted by Fromabove

 

If you do smoke and you don't want the chemicals they add, there is a brand out there that makes them like they once did before the chemicals were added, and it's just tobacco. I can't remember the name but the box is yellow that they come in. And they do not smell bad or stink.

If you mean Natural American Spirits, I can vouch for their "differentness." I've tried a lot of brands over the past 28 years, from old standbys like Camels and Marlboro to weird imports like Sobranie and duMaurier and Dunhills, and everything but Spirits increases coughing and pain and - well, actually... There used to be one called "Kamel Reds." Those also felt a lot better than regular brands. Then they stopped making them (for us, at least; I always suspected they were created so Elites who smoke could do so more-healthily). Spirits are the best ones currently generally available to us slaves. Yes, they cost more (the cheaper anything is, the worse for you it is), but I figure they'll pay for themselves in lower medical bills later.

And then I think to myself... "But wait. They aren't made by American Indians, they're made by RJ Reynolds. They therefore must be evil somehow." I'm sure they exist for some nefarious purpose other than "because selling 25 cents' worth of dried plants and paper for $7.00 is criminally profitable." It's almost like they're made by Big Pharma, in fact. As with all things, time will tell.

reply to post by Thought Provoker


At least here, theyre so expensive because of the tax added to treat all the dying people who smoke them which is perfectly fair.

Originally posted by Maxmars

You'll live just as long if you drink and smoke

www.tgdaily.com

Ha ha ha. Ha ha ha. Ha ha ha ha ha.I'm gonna light a cigarette, pour myself a beer and feel smug.

The latest research shows that diet, exercise, smoking and drinking have no bearing at all - none - on whether we'll live to be very old.

(visit the link for the full news article)

this is true.. we have all got about 3 months... so light up and gulp down

My great grandparents lived into their 90's...one of them was so old school he never learned English and had to live with his children that never learned German well enough to carry on a conversation. He would sit at the table and pound a shot glass on it until he was poured two good shots of bourbon every morning, afternoon, and evening. I hope the same holds true for scotch!

The study group is "particularly uniform bunch genetically." Unless you have the same genes as these folks, you might be # out of luck. Having said that, my grandpa smoked and drank, lived till 83. But he lived in the countryside where there is no pollution and he mainly grew his own food. I think fresh air and diet has a lot to do with your longevity.

I used to smoke a pack a day, then I dipped a can of skoal every 1-2 days.

I quit completely, and I FEEL better. My lungs feel better, I have more energy, heartburn subsides, etc.

I care more about how I feel every day and quality of life than making sure I live the maximum time I possibly can.

Riiiight...

Never mind the tens of thousands who die every year from diseases and cancers directly related to tobacco and alcohol. Come on, give me a f-ing break. I can't believe how bold these people are getting with their "buy our stuff" propaganda. Once again, I find it interesting something like this comes out during a very very hot period in the cannabis debate.

Well my uncle smoked 2 packs of Marb reds a day (cowboy killers) for 30 or so years, he did die, but from suicide. They did an autopsy and said his lungs looked that of a 10 year old boy. Also my grandfather and a few others drank like fishes their whole life, hardcore alchys. My Grandfather is around 85 now and the only thing wrong with him is his eyes. I do think health for the most part may be genetics and also your mind. Kinda like how some people die when they feel ready too, or how some beat certain diseases because in their mind, they could. I am sure smoking and drinking overall is not healthy though. Interesting post.


Deebo

At 98 years old my great grandmother is still kicking around. She smokes and drinks enough in a day to straight up kill me. My grandfather and grandmother are equally still in on the fight and again, they both drink and smoke. Red, my grandfather smokes about 20 unfiltered Gitanes a day but doesn't drink and Millie, my grandmother drinks enough Gin to put gin companies out of production if she stopped. My mother drinks like a freakin' fish, eats red meat every day and wouldn't eat lettuce if her life depended on it and my father, an ex US Army type would rather eat Uranium than "hippie rabbit food." If his dinner ain't fried he ain't eating it. His classic quote that I still remember to this day, I offered to order from a local Chinese restaurant and his reply, "I am not Chinese and I'm not eating their damn food." Perhaps some latent racism there but the fact remains, he's still alive.

The point? These people are alive because they are happy. It's not genetic or spiritual, they hold onto life because they are content. The secret to life is happiness...

I like the way they link the sources to the study in this article. Oh wait a minute...

Here's are the first few links I found supporting the theory that smoking causes cancer, obtained by me typing 'cigarette' and 'cancer' into PubMed. You're welcome to try with 'alcohol' and 'cancer'; 'obesity' and 'diabetes'; 'obesity' and 'heart disease' if you like

Tobacco smoke is the major etiologic risk factor for lung cancer in current or previous smokers and has been strongly related to certain types of lung cancer, such as small cell lung carcinoma and squamous cell lung carcinoma.

Lung carcinoma signaling pathways activated by smoking.

Smoking induces bimodal DNA damage in mouse lung.

CONCLUSION: Exposure to cigarette smoke caused serious damage to the respiratory system, particularly with concomitant exposure to biomass smoke.

Pulmonary toxicity of chronic exposure to tobacco and biomass smoke in rats.

Chronic inflammation associated with cigarette smoke fosters malignant transformation and tumor cell proliferation and promotes certain nonneoplastic pulmonary diseases

Cigarette smoke, bacteria, mold, microbial toxins, and chronic lung inflammation.

Cigarette smoking and breast cancer risk.

I too believe it is all in the genes, have done ever since I was taught in class, that cancer is all about the swtiching on or off of certain components. But the gene has to be present for there to be a swtich.

I might have it a little around my ankles, it was 18 years ago, but I think the principle still rings true.

Switch ON, switch OFF

I saw this article on Yahoo, and the test group they used was Ashkenzi Jews, because they have fewer variances.

Interestingly enough, and most probably entirely unrelated, but my Maternal side, are of Jewish descent, and everyone of them drank and smoked, and the day they gave up, was the day they died, almost quite literally.

reply to post by Maxmars

You'll live just as long if you drink and smoke

I bloody well knew it! Things are changing in a weird way in terms of what we are learning about what keeps us healthy.

I really appreciate everything about this thread, OP.

Now seems like a good time to link all interested parties that have not seen it to my Bacon thread...

The Truth About Bacon: www.abovetopsecret.com...

My grandfather died of liver failure and emphysema. While some centenarians can live up to that age living that lifestyle, it all depends on the genetic predisposition of the person drinking and smoking. Lets remember that lung cancer is caused not by smoking the tobacco itself rather the other chemicals inside of the actual cigarette. Also, the actual smoke causes lung damage which your body can repair but at the same time raise your chances of getting cancer as more cellular regeneration can up the chances of having cellular mutation, i.e cancer. So it all boils down to the person and their body rather the substance.

This is utter and complete bull* they know excess alcohol dostn break down quickly in yuor liver, hence forth liver disease and failure from alcoholics.
explain to me, why both my parents got lung cancer, and my fathers mother, form decades of smoking? in al cases, the doctors wanted to know how long and how much they smoked..
this news article is rubbish*

reply to post by Maxmars


Well actually it does. it just so happens that some people have more resistance to its affects. That's why an Italian can live to 90 even if he smoked everyday, but an Englishman will find himself likely dead by 50.

I remember my friend brought me in to anatomy class to touch the lungs of a dead smoker and a healthy lung of a dead human. You could poke a hole into a smokers lungs and it would crumble through. A healthy lung still had flesh around it. They were saying that this is what happens to a lung of smoker who smokes for 20 years and starts coughing up blood.

Your also a sheep to get addicted to something so stupid that it harms you such as smoking.

I smoke dont drink and weigh 165
beer gut hanging over your belt is worse for your health than smokeing and drinking in moderation

Live as healthy as you can..and you still may die in a car crash..life holds no promises .

Originally posted by Julie Washington

I also believe that the SUN does NOT cause skin cancer. You either have the cancer gene or not.

It's all about the DNA.

You and the 7 folks you starred your misinformed post need to read more about the subject.

Cancer is caused when a strand of DNA is damaged, and fails to kill itself (apoptosis), and then replicates itself spreading it's damaged DNA code.

Radiation can easily cause this to happen.

However radiation from the Sun should in theory be minimal considering we have evolved and adapted to the Sun's rays for countless eons, so yes I am very skeptical of claims that the Sun caused major skin cancer issues. Instead I would try to find a more likely culprit, like suntan lotion created out of petrochemicals which are known to be highly carcinogenic.

The idea of a "cancer gene" is off base because by definition cancer is the replication of damaged DNA. When the 'genes are damaged' cancer is a likely result. For example the gene that causes cell death (apoptosis) operates normally in non-cancer cells, and when cancer occurs the gene is not operating correctly anymore and the cell fails to kill itself when it's lifespan is over.

my grandmother is near 100 years old right now both grandfathers passed on before i ever got ot know em

my father is 75 with his 4th pacemaker in and who has congestive heart failure for the past 25 years.

just might be something to this study. my pop use to smoke dunno about my grandfather he died from black lung.

but dudes dont get your hopes up women live longer than men.

Originally posted by nahsik
I remember my friend brought me in to anatomy class to touch the lungs of a dead smoker and a healthy lung of a dead human. You could poke a hole into a smokers lungs and it would crumble through. A healthy lung still had flesh around it. They were saying that this is what happens to a lung of smoker who smokes for 20 years and starts coughing up blood.

Your also a sheep to get addicted to something so stupid that it harms you such as smoking.

So smokers are sheep, but you believe everything you are told by the "authority" without question?

Did you do a chemical analysis on the lung you touched? No? Than how do you know it isn't a coal miners lung? Don't tell me you took their word for it.

There are many cases of coal miner lungs being passed off as smoker's lungs. This is not unprecedented and in fact it's not all too uncommon either.

Now consider this paradox. You use electricity every day, which forces thousands of miners to go into coal mines and get coal lung. But yet you probably don't care and keep using the electricity. And then the pollution from the coal power plants (mercury) falls all over the place, on our houses, lawns, and our bodies.

So really who is the sheep?