SMOKING IS HEALTHY ! .......YOU'RE ALL BEING LIED TO.

Tobacco might not be so bad, but the added chemicals in cigarettes and filters are deadly and highly addictive. And I'm a smoker.

Generations of people in my family have smoked till their deaths. Not one of them has ever died of cancer or any of the so-called tobacco related illnesses.

They die from old age.

But that's a family secret!

Right. I try and smoke tobacco with less additives. Another thing to think about is, the cig. paper.

If you think about it you're smoking paper, which can't be good.

yea, tell that to my Mother who died in 1994 at the age of 54 with..... lung cancer....

same here.

The problem is how it makes you and your surroundings look and smell.

Then there is:

The digging in the trash for a butt at 3am like some kind of starving rodent. Having to stop on road trips and stand outside in a fucking blizzard just to take a couple of drags. Scrubbing your fingers with steel wool and comet to get rid of nicotine stains. Taking your $200 slacks to the cleaners and asking them if they can fix a burn hole in the crotch. Taking your car in to see if they can fix a burn hole in the leather seat under your crotch. Swerving in traffic and risking your life and other's while your crotch is fucking on fire....

It might be healthy but its not worth it.

Smoke a wood pipe.

Very thin and refined paper, but paper nonetheless. The tobacco would be more harmful in any case.

Sounds more like drunkards than smokers. What clumsy(rich) people you must know.

And the half a century (plus/minus) of her breathing in Diesel, car, and Factory fumes, did not play a part??

Just sayin.

Dead people don't get colds either.

If smoking prevents you from getting colds, it means the normal physiology of your body has been interfered with; it doesn't mean it's a good thing or that you are healthy.

I woulf rather get colds and let the body's natural immune system fight the virus, than to coat my lungs with tar.

.

So, you thought it was the tar that caused cancer...

Think again. Cigarette companies will have you believing
anything just as long as you continue to buy their products. The
fact is, although insoluble tars are a contributing factor to the
lung cancer danger present in today's cigarettes, the real danger
is radioactivity. According to U.S. Surgeon General C. Everette
Koop (on national television, 1990) radioactivity, not tar,
accounts for at least 90% of all smoking related lung cancer.
Tobacco crops grown in the United States are fertilized by law
with phosphates rich in radium 226. In addition, many soils have
a natural radium 226 content. Radium 226 breaks down into two long
lived 'daughter' elements -- lead 210 and polonium 210. These
radioactive particles become airborne, and attach themselves to the
fine hairs on tobacco leaves.
Studies have shown that lead 210 and polonium 210 deposits
accumulate in the bodies of people exposed to cigarette smoke.
Data collected in the late 1970's shows that smokers have three
times as much of these elements in their lower lungs as non
smokers. Smokers also show a greater accumulation of lead 210 and
polonium 210 in their skeletons,though no studies have been
conducted to link these deposits with bone cancer. Polonium 210 is
the only component of cigarette smoke which has produced tumors by
itself in inhalation experiments with animals.
When a smoker inhales tobacco smoke, the lungs react by
forming irritated areas in the bronchi. All smoke produces this
effect. However, although these irritated spots are referred to as
'pre-cancerous' lesions, they are a perfectly natural defense
system and usually go away with no adverse effects. Insoluble tars
in tobacco smoke can slow this healing process by adhering to
lesions and causing additional irritation. In addition, tobacco
smoke causes the bronchi to constrict for long periods of time,
which obstructs the lung's ability to clear itself of these
residues.
Polonium 210 and lead 210 in tobacco smoke show a tendency to
accumulate at lesions in specific spots, called bifurcations, in
the bronchi. When smoking is continued for an extended period of
time, deposits of radioactivity turn into radioactive 'hot spots'
and remain at bifurcations for years. Polonium 210 emits highly
localized alpha radiation which has been shown to cause cancer.
Since the polonium 210 has a half life of 21.5 years (Due to the
presence of lead 210), it can put an ex-smoker at risk for years
after he or she quits. Experiments measuring the level of polonium
210 in victims of lung cancer found that the level of 'hot spot'
activity was virtually the same in smokers and ex-smokers even though
the ex-smokers had quit five years prior to death.
Over half of the radioactive materials emitted by a burning
cigarette are released into the air, where they can be inhaled by
non-smokers. In addition to lead 210 and polonium 210 it has been
proven that tobacco smoke can cause airborne radioactive particles
to collect in the lungs of both smokers and non-smokers exposed to
second hand smoke. Original studies conducted on uranium miners
which showed an increased risk of lung cancer due to exposure to
radon in smokers have been re-run to evaluate the radioactive lung
cancer risk from indoor air radon. It turns out that tobacco smoke
works as a kind of 'magnet' for airborne radioactive particles,
causing them to deposit in your lungs instead of on furniture.
(Smoking indoors increases lung cancer risks greatly.)
It has been estimated that the total accumulated alpha
radiation exposure of a pack-a-day indoor smoker is 38 to 97 rad by
age 60. (Two packs a day yields up to 143 rad, and non-smokers
receive no more than 17 rad.) An exposure of 1 rad per year yields
a 1% risk of lung cancer (at the lowest estimate.)
Don't smoke. Or if you do, smoke lightly, outdoors, and
engage frequently in activities which will clear your lungs.
Imported India tobacco has less than half the radiation content of
that grown in the U.S.
Kicking the nicotine habit is not easy, and nobody has the
right to expect it of you. Often physical addictions are
reinforced by emotional and psychological needs. Filling or coming
to terms with those needs can give you the inspiration and added
freedom to succeed.
Most of all, inform yourself, even if the information is
disturbing. You are a lot less likely to be taken in by tobacco
advertising once you know the facts.


Nicotine, the active ingredient in tobacco smoke, has long
been known to be highly addictive. In fact, doctors and
pharmacologists are not in consensus as to which is more addictive
-- nicotine, or heroin. Physical addiction occurs when a chemical
becomes essential for the body or metabolism to function. In other
words, a substance is said to be physically addictive if extended
use results in a build up of tolerance in the body to the extent
that discontinuing use of the substance results in negative side
effects. Called "withdrawal symptoms," these consequences can
include anxiety, stress, trauma, depression and physical conditions
such as shakes or nausea. It is to avoid these consequences that
an addict will keep using his or her substance.
In addition to being addictive, nicotine is also a toxin (i.e.
lethal if ingested in sufficient quantities.) Nicotine has been
shown to have a negative effect on the heart and circulatory
systems, causing a constriction in veins and arteries which may
lead to a stroke or heart attack. In fact, nicotine is so
poisonous that smokers who ignore their doctor's advice and
continue to smoke while using dermal nicotine patches have managed
to overdose and die of heart seizure.

Many people think smoking marijuana is just as harmful as
smoking tobacco, but this is not true. Those who hold that
marijuana is equivalent to tobacco are misinformed. Due to the
efforts of various federal agencies to discourage use of
marijuana in the 1970's the government, in a fit of "reefer
madness," conducted several biased studies designed to return
results that would equate marijuana smoking with tobacco smoking,
or worse.
For example the Berkeley carcinogenic tar studies of the
late 1970's concluded that "marijuana is one-and-a-half times as
carcinogenic as tobacco." This finding was based solely on the
tar content of cannabis leaves compared to that of tobacco, and
did not take radioactivity into consideration. (Cannabis tars do
not contain radioactive materials.) In addition, it was not
considered that:
1) Most marijuana smokers smoke the bud, not the leaf, of
the plant. The bud contains only 33% as much tar as tobacco.
2) Marijuana smokers do not smoke anywhere near as much as
tobacco smokers, due to the psychoactive effects of cannabis.
3) Not one case of lung cancer has ever been successfully
linked to marijuana use.
4) Cannabis, unlike tobacco, does not cause any narrowing of
the small air passageways in the lungs.
In fact, marijuana has been shown to be an expectorant and
actually dilates the air channels it comes in contact with. This
is why many asthma sufferers look to marijuana to provide relief.
Doctors have postulated that marijuana may, in this respect, be
more effective than all of the prescription drugs on the market.
Studies even show that due to marijuana's ability to clear
the lungs of smog, pollutants, and cigarette smoke, it may
actually reduce your risk of emphysema, bronchitis, and lung
cancer. Smokers of cannabis have been shown to outlive non-
smokers in some areas by up to two years. Medium to heavy
tobacco smokers will live seven to ten years longer if they also
smoke marijuana.
Cannabis is also radically different from tobacco in that it
does not contain nicotine and is not addictive. The psychoactive
ingredient in marijuana, THC, has been accused of causing brain
and genetic damage, but these studies have all been disproven.
In fact, the DEA's own Administrative Law Judge Francis Young has
declared that "marijuana in its natural form is far safer than
many foods we commonly consume."

The disturbing thing about all of this information is that
the majority of Americans are as yet unaware of the radioactive
risk in cigarettes. In fact, many professionals: doctors,
scientists and health administrators, either have never heard of
polonium 210 or consider it to be just another scare story.
Why is this information so hard to come by? When the
studies were first released in the late 70's, many magazines were
unable to print articles because their main advertisers,
cigarette companies, threatened to pull support if they published
the facts. Although network news did pick up the story,
virtually nothing came out in print. Those who heard were hard
pressed to produce collaborating evidence, and were eventually
convinced it was nothing to worry about.
The power of the cigarette industry to suppress information
goes far beyond magazines, however. A well financed tobacco
lobby has been very active in the United States Congress for
decades procuring subsidies and fighting laws and proposed
research which could hurt the American tobacco industry. Tobacco
interests practically own Senate and House seats, as many
campaign contributions come from cigarette profits. Tobacco pay-
offs also go to fund organizations such as the Partnership For A
Drug Free America, which adopt a harsh anti-drug agenda yet seem
to omit alcohol and tobacco (claiming they are harmless.)
As an example, a 1984 law which was intended to require
tobacco companies to release to the public a list of additives
used in the manufacture of cigarettes was watered down to the
extent that the list is now released only to the Department of
Health and Human Services on the condition that it not be shown
to anyone else. Companies have been known in the past to add
chemicals to cigarettes for flavor, and, many assert, for their
addictive properties. In Britain such chemicals have included
acetone and turpentine, as well as an assortment of known
carcinogens.
Tobacco companies argue that revealing their 'secret
ingredients' would hurt their competitiveness. In fact, when
Canada passed legislation forcing additive lists to be released,
one large company reformulated its recipe for its Canadian
distribution; another took its product out of Canada entirely.
Tobacco companies do not have the right to poison the
public. Don't trust them. Get the information you need to make
your own decisions, and restore government to the people.

Another destructive aspect of the Drug War is the
unreasonable measures taken as a result of "reefer madness."
Because of the long standing anti-pot-smoking paranoia begun in
the 1930's, many law enforcement agencies have taken it upon
themselves to censor and limit the marijuana culture through
whatever channels they can find. This includes the banning of
various forms of drug "paraphernalia" (pipes, clips, rolling
papers, etc.)
Water pipes, or "bongs," are quite often the target of such
efforts. Claiming that water pipes are constructed to allow
marijuana smokers to inhale "dangerous" marijuana smoke deeper
into their lungs, many states and towns have passed laws
controlling the sale, manufacture, and possession of these items
for "health" reasons.
The sad fact is, water pipes have been shown to be extremely
effective in removing harmful materials from smoke before it
reaches the lungs. They also cool the smoke and prevent injury
and irritation to lung passages. In effect, laws against water
pipes hurt all smokers, cannabis and tobacco, by preventing the
development of safer forms of consumption.

Produced as a public service by the University of Massachusetts
at Amherst Cannabis Reform Coalition
Researched and written by Brian S. Julin

[link to www.erowid.org]

Well when you see them cough up huge amounts of blood, gasp for air, and die a most horrid death, then the Doctors tell you it is the cigarette, ok, perhaps not the tobacco per se, but,,,, SHE IS STILL DEAD FROM SMOKING...

Agent Tray.

All that stuff you posted is CUT AND PASTE. How bout some original thought on your part.
(Not to mention, by the "powers that be".)

Read my post and respond to what I wrote, using your brain.

it wasnt the powers that be that wrote that

and oh so sorry to offend by not putting in original thought.. i will go off now.. to offend other lame threads with pertinent info.

Then how come smokers can't run for shit. All of my friends smoke. Anytime they come to my apartment which is only on the 3 rd floor they are all out of wind by the time the get to my door. I on the other hand have no problems what so ever.

No matter what you do, you're still going to die.
I don't care what kind of health you are in, if you watch what you eat, exercise daily, and never touch alcohol, drugs, or cigarettes you will still die.
I am here to enjoy myself while I am alive.
I smoke and I happen to believe the smell of smoke isn't nearly as bad as the pollution the chemical plant within a block from me emits.
I believe the OP is onto something.
Think back to the time of our grandparents and before.
Many of them smoked and ate farm raised foods like eggs and bacon everyday.
You just didn't hear of them dying from those lifestyles.
So maybe it's not those things killing us persay.
I do believe those things aren't that good for us but then again neither is walking down certain streets after dark.
When you're time is up it's up.
Would you rather be in perfect shape and health only to die of a heart attack at 25?
It happens all the time.
If that happened to me I'd be pissed I didn't live every day to the fullest and eat,smoke, and drink what I wanted to.
Besides, who wants to live forever in a world as fucked up as this anyway?

Yeah it was. Vested interests. The world ain't what you think it is. Money, money, money.

Look up who's behind Anti-smoking.
Big Pharma. Lot of money in Quit smoking products !

Guess you can't handle the points I'm makin?

I guess you hang around whith some pretty weak smokers then.. lol cus I smoke and run 3 miles almost every day on my treadmill.

I also walk faster than anyone in any group I am in.. always being told to slow down. Never had any issues with stairs and I am in my late 30s

I agree with you OP, but I doubt they put the same ingredients in their smokes back then as we do these days.

It would be interesting to see a health study of those who buy smokes and those who roll their own with known tobacco.

Let me see..............Cause mabbe you're USED to running up 3 flights o stair, and they aren't ?!

Ever try that same test on non-smokers, or should I say "Pollution inhalers."

:)

Yeah, very good point !

OP thats like Exxon Mobil saying OILs really bad for your car.

The fag companys would love it to be healthy for you, and back it up with scientific evidence. Then they could advertise them and even stop priting "SMOKING KILLS YOU" in big bold print on their fag packs!!!

STFU with your BULLSHIT.

What I cant understand is that if smoking is so "bad" why is it still legal.

We ban drugs like cocaine, heroin, PCP, weed.. and the like.. yet tobacco which they say is so "dangerous" is still legal. Why do you think that is.. if in fact, smoking is so "deadly"

Don't be fooled.. this whole anti smoking craze is nothing more then a new world agenda litmus test for how much people are willing to have their personal autonomy taken away.

My choice, huh ?

1. Don't smoke commercial brands. (Smoke loose organic tobacco.)

2. Read my original post, this time mabbe with a fukin OPEN MIND ??!

Lol....

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that. It's so blatantly obvious.

"SMOKING IS HEALTHY "

I fist saw this in a Woody Allen movie in the 70's

That's what Sir Raleigh believed in the 1600's anyway.

Whats even more interesting is thats what an entire civilization, Native American Indians, still believe to this day, and have believed for 4000 years.

Actually other civilizations believe this also. Indigenous tribes, etc.

My dad died at the age of 89 (smoker)
My Mother died at 90 (smoker)
My Uncle died when he was 87 (heavy smoker)
My 3 aunts, 85, 91, 87 (all smokers)

All died of old age with the exception of my dad which died due to cancer that was dormant and became active due to a surgical intervention that addressed something else... poisons from lead based inks he used all his life in the print industry.

I once heard a statistic on Buenos Aires for example.
Standing in downtown Buenos Aires and breathing that air for an hour was the equivalent to smoking (3) three packs of cigarettes in an hour. Due to vehicle emissions (a lot of buses and taxis).

The added chemicals may to harm, but I know for a fact that tobacco is harmless compared to working close to industrial emissions.

I fully agree with the OP.

Sure, smoking may seem nasty to many. But hey, what about alcohol? I find that much more offensive since my smoking a pack a day won't induce me to nearly pass out at the wheel possibly killing someone as alcohol abuse would.

Burnt clothing? Sure, it happens, be more careful.
Burnt car seats? Yep, don't smoke in your car, simple.