Smoking is not bad for you. Stop the persecution of smokers.

Now let me explain my argument :

1) Smoking is an ancient tradition practiced by many native tribes . They never
got lung disease or problems from it.
source :
(Tobacco Use by Native North Americans:
Sacred Smoke and Silent Killer edited by Joseph C. Winter)

2) Lung cancer rates correlated to toxic herbicide and fertilizer that began
in the 1930s - most notably polonium based pesticides.
This is what people now believe is the cause of cancer - not the actual tobacco.
The plastic filter contains harmful carcinogens that do harm health though.
The bleached white paper also contains harmful chemicals that harm health.

3) Pure 100% tobacco does not cause health problems, even if smoked.
Tobacco is a medicinal plant that has been used for thousands of years.

"smoking promotes the formation of a thin mucous layer in the lungs, which forms a protective layer stopping any cancer-carrying particles from entering the lung tissue". Particles like aluminum, thorium, barium.
- Professor Schrauzer

Ideally, if people wanted to look into this more and do their own research, here
are some good links

http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/38868-smoking-is-good-for-you/

http://www.longevitywarehouse.com/blog/natures-secret-weapon-against-seasonal-allergies/

https://thetruthergirls.wordpress.com/2011/09/05/the-smoking-gun-for-big-tobacco/

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2008/08/29/radioactive-polonium-in-cigarette-smoke/

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/opinion/01proctor.html

http://wispofsmoke.net/goodforyou.html
http://naturalsociety.com/lobelia-herbal-remedy-smoking-habit/

http://colby.myvtoronte.com/b-chap5.htm
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/editorials/vol-1/e1-4.htm
https://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/smoking.htm

“Dr. Duane Carr – Professor of Surgery at the University of Tennessee College of Medicine, said this: “Smoking does not discolor the lung.”

Dr. Victor Buhler, Pathologist at St. Joseph Hospital in Kansas City: “I have examined thousands of lungs both grossly and microscopically. I cannot tell you from exmining a lung whether or not its former host had smoked.”

Dr. Sheldon Sommers, Pathologist and Director of Laboratories at Lenox Hill Hospital, in New York: “…it is not possible grossly or microscopically, or in any other way known to me, to distinguish between the lung of a smoker or a nonsmoker. Blackening of lungs is from carbon particles, and smoking tobacco does not introduce carbon particles into the lung.”This was confirmed by Dr Jan Zeldenrust, a Dutch pathologist for the Government of Holland from 1951 – 1984. In a television interview in the 1980’s he stated that, translated from Dutch, “I could never see on a pair of lungs if they belonged to a smoker or non-smoker. I can see clearly the difference between sick and healthy lungs. The only black lungs I’ve seen are from peat-workers and coal miners, never from smokers”.

wispofsmoke.net/PDFs/Whitby.pdf - excellent book

excerpts from the book https://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2015/08/06/william-whitby-smoking-is-good-for-you/

https://www.scribd.com/document/125915399/Smoking-is-Good-for-You?ad_group=&campaign=Skimbit%2C+Ltd.&content=10079&irgwc=1&keyword=ft750noi&medium=affiliate&source=impactradius

non-smokers have more respiratory problems
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27731153?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Scientifically IMPOSSIBLE for tobacco to cause lung cancer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s9_87ru324

http://healthland.time.com/2012/01/10/study-smoking-marijuana-not-linked-with-lung-damage/
- This article debunks the "smoking anything is bad for you" as marijuana smoke is not proven to harm the lungs

TL : DR - the fertilisers on the tobacco, the plastic filters and bleached paper cause health problems.
100% pure organic tobacco does not cause health problems.
It costs 1 pound for 20 cigarettes if you grow your own tobacco or use whole leaf tobacco instead

(edited 6 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

username2923348

Original post by r3035

Now let me explain my argument :

1) Smoking is an ancient tradition practiced by many native tribes . They never
got lung disease or problems from it.

2) Lung cancer rates correlated to toxic herbicide and fertilizer that began
in the 1930s - most notably polonium based pesticides.
This is what people now believe is the cause of cancer - not the actual tobacco.

3) The plastic filter contains harmful carcinogens that do harm health.

4) The bleached white paper also contains harmful chemicals that harm health.

5) Pure 100% tobacco does not cause health problems, even if smoked.
Tobacco is a medicinal plant that has been used for thousands of years.

Ideally, if people wanted to look into this more and do their own research, here
are some good links
http://www.longevitywarehouse.com/blog/natures-secret-weapon-against-seasonal-allergies/

https://thetruthergirls.wordpress.com/2011/09/05/the-smoking-gun-for-big-tobacco/

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2008/08/29/radioactive-polonium-in-cigarette-smoke/

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/opinion/01proctor.html

Okay and now let me explain why you are wrong. You are still inhaling smoke, and also carbon monoxide and nicotine.

I cannot be bothered to explain why they are bad for you, just google it.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 2

Dheorl

The ancient tribes never developed problems from it because there were a bajillion other things that would kill them before cancer had a chance.

Reply 3

It's****ingWOODY

So, basically, your argument is, cigarettes and probably cigars are bad for you. Since smokers smoke these, smoking is bad for you, for all the reasons you stated. You could argue that vaping is a lot healthier, but this would be a completely unsubstantiated claim at this time.

Reply 4

Sammylou40

Smoking or not is up to you. We know the consequences
I'm interested to know, that given the minimum tax on a pack will rise to £8.30 in a few days, where you think this money will come from when everyone has stopped
The Greek government recently said they had no desire to cut smoking rates. It raises income and cuts pension costs as the smokers die earlier

Reply 5

r3035

Original post by WoodyMKC

That's not my argument.

My argument was if you smoked 100% organic pure tobacco, or even grew your own,

and then smoked it in a paper like organic hemp paper,

then you would not breathe in the chemicals from the fertilizers or the bleached paper .

It's the chemicals sprayed on tobacco, the chemicals in the paper, and the plastic chemicals in the filter that's the problem.
Look at the links I gave, they provide the information about this.

Reply 6

r3035

Original post by TheRealSquiddy

Okay

smoke is not necessarily bad for you - lavender was historically smoked to heal the body, herbs in ancient traditions like China and Aztecs
were historically smoked too. Also vaporizers prove that breathing in smoke isn't bad for you.

carbon monoxide - okay, I don't know the science behind carbon monoxide if being honest.

nicotine - this has been proven to have benefits for people

This article also explains the differences . It's simply the chemicals on the tobacco causing the problems - not the tobacco.

American Indians Managed to Smoke Tobacco
Without Lung Cancer – Why?

http://naturalsociety.com/lobelia-herbal-remedy-smoking-habit/

Reply 7

anosmianAcrimony

Original post by r3035

I’m sure you can agree, though, that the modern tobacco industry is just plain old bad. If nothing else, the easy availability of cheap, unhealthy cigarettes is the biggest obstacle to wide acceptance of the somewhat healthier practices you’ve just described.

Reply 8

Drez999

*sigh*

See you in the Chest Clinic...

Reply 9

jackhaugh

So your claim of "smoking is not bad for you" is a little bit vague isn't it?

I'm not entirely convinced that smoking tobacco has no detriment to your health, but whether it's the chemicals on the tobacco, the paper, the nicotine etc smoking cigarettes, the most popular form of smoking, is most definitely bad for you.

Reply 10

r3035

Original post by Drez999

*sigh*

See you in the Chest Clinic...

Lol. I expected response like this.

But let's look at history.

"
Indian tobacco, has a long history of use as an herbal remedy for respiratory conditions such as asthma,
bronchitis, pneumonia, and cough. Historically, Native Americans smoked lobelia as a treatment for asthma."

https://healthunlocked.com/nosmokingday/posts/133140732/herbal-cigarettes-and-or-lobelia-inflata-indian-tobacco

Yes, the cigarettes people smoke and buy are bad for you. So let's educate the British public that you can smoke things that have historic backing and are not harmful to the body.

Reply 11

r3035

Original post by sg4

just stfu you ignorant pr"ck.

Look at these links and then reach a conclusion

https://healthunlocked.com/nosmokingday/posts/133140732/herbal-cigarettes-and-or-lobelia-inflata-indian-tobacco

http://naturalsociety.com/lobelia-herbal-remedy-smoking-habit/

https://thetruthergirls.wordpress.com/2011/09/05/the-smoking-gun-for-big-tobacco/

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2008/08/29/radioactive-polonium-in-cigarette-smoke/

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/opinion/01proctor.html

http://www.longevitywarehouse.com/blog/natures-secret-weapon-against-seasonal-allergies/

Reply 12

username3118454

Holy **** - you know nothing!

Those aren't even credible sources, you may as well have not posted them.
Lmao.

You can't just look to history for evidence when we actually know the science behind smoking.

Smoking a roll-up of anything organic produces carbon particulates. You basically get soot in your lungs. You damage your lungs.

Reply 13

difeo

Original post by TheRealSquiddy

nice

Reply 14

r3035

Original post by angelike1

The evidence doesn't show that though. Look at native americans, they basically have no lung damage.

Are they credible sources ? You will never find a neutral balanced source on such a controversial topic like this.

Honestly, - grow your own tobacco, and smoke it. That would be harmless.

A mass produced cigarette has 4000 chemicals added to it compared to just one in home grow tobacco.

Reply 15

anosmianAcrimony

Original post by r3035

I’m just reaching the end of my second year studying Biochemistry here at Bristol. I can tell you that breathing in smoke is basically an unhealthy thing to do. Burning any sort of biological substance produces free radicals and big, nasty polycyclic species that are great at glomming onto your DNA. This leads to cell death if you’re lucky and cancer if you’re not.

As you note, breathing in smoke exposes you to carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide binds to haemoglobin, the protein that ferries around oxygen in your bloodstream, at the same site where oxygen usually binds. It does so irreversibly, rendering that haemoglobin molecule a useless lump and diminishing your circulatory system’s ability to supply oxygen to your body. Hence why smokers can’t seem to catch their breath, have trouble climbing stairs, and tend to have heart problems.

Chinese and Aztec ancients breathed in smoke because they didn’t know better. They probably benefitted from the placebo effect, but otherwise it would have done them more harm than good.

Vapourisers produce vapour, not smoke. A person’s lungs can cope perfectly well with water vapour - there’s plenty of that in there already.

I don’t know a lot about the biological effects of nicotine, other than that in the 17th century, it was literally used as a poison by assassins, and that it’s widely used as an insecticide today.

Finally, a point of note - you make a false dichotomy between tobacco and chemicals. Tobacco, and every other living system, is made up of hundreds of millions of different chemicals that interact in ways that we call life. ’Natural’ and ’pure’ are not useful words, and are often used to mislead.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 16

username3118454

Original post by r3035

Lung cancer takes several decades to develop so you're most likely going to get cancer post aged-60. Life expectancy was lower then because cancer was the lesser of their problems (compared to infectious diseases which we now have antibiotics for).

You can get credible sources if you look up scientific journals and publications, where all the experiment data is there. Also look at non-profit organization websites (such as the NHS).

I won't deny ciggarettes are much worse than smoking tobacco alone and the tar it contains gives a much higher risk of cancer.

Reply 17

mrqasim

Original post by r3035

I'm a smoker, and I think when you're climbing up a flight of stairs trying to catch your breath at 18 surely isn't due to the amazing affects smoking has on you.

Reply 18

r3035

Original post by anosmianAcrimony

9000 people die a year in London from air pollution. If anything this proves my argument.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/nearly-9500-people-die-each-year-in-london-because-of-air-pollution-study

Smoking isn't the ONLY thing that can harm you.

Reply 19

anosmianAcrimony

Original post by r3035

Ffs, I never suggested that smoking was the only thing that harms people. It’s still really bad for you, though, for all the reasons I listed above, which you have helpfully edited out and ignored!

Air pollution is a big problem too, but bringing it up here is something of a non sequitur.