I used to buy the anti-smoking 'science', and thought only an idiot would smoke! Why would someone inhale burning plant matter? It just seemed stupid. How ignorant was I! I never realized that maybe they smoked it because it had benefits, only deduced it was because they were "addicted". Never having tried it myself, that was that. Then, to cut a long story short, a series of events unfolded that challenged this perception in graduate school.
I found out that ALL anti-tobacco science rested on (weak) epidemiological studies. The further I dug, the more I was amazed. I found the works of William Whitby, an actual medical doctor, that knew of this years ago and railed against the anti-tobacco science of his day. I was STILL convinced that tobacco was bad for you though. However, what pushed me into the event horizon was seeing the experimental studies (hard science), to that very day (and this very day still!) that showed that scientists were incapable of inducing cancer with tobacco smoke! Now, I was amazed and I did further research into the pharmalogical properties of the tobacco smoke, and realized it wasn't just "plant matter" after all, this plant matter contained hundreds of bioactive compounds that were beneficial, and even life-extending (note, 75% of all supercentarians were smokers).
Once you see the case for yourself, you will realize that the emperor of anti-smoking "science" has no clothes! It is an invented pseudoscience much like man-made climate change.
The health benefits don't even matter as much as the cost.
Smoking a pack a day in Canada will cost you 350+ every month.
What kind of moron spends that kind of money on such a worthless disgusting habit?
William Miller
Anti-tobacco "science" began as a moral crusade where people were trying to demonize it through dishonesty under the guise of science. The first "hard" study, did involve dogs, however, it was proved to be patently falsified, as admitted under oath by researchers involved. After the anti-tobacco crusaders realized the hard science was not on their side, they switched to soft epidemiological studies, that intentionally would provide a result they were looking for.
The government gains control, a pretense for further taxation. Moreover, the enhanced cognition yielded by tobacco use is despised by those with power. Scientists gain funding. Smoke-haters gain a world filled with less smoking.
Eventually, even well meaning scientists bought the lie, simply because of the "overwhelming" amount of evidence, without realizing that this mountain of evidence was all baseless and not predicated on any hard science (there is so much of it, they took for granted that there had to be something behind it), eventually carrying on the flawed non-randomized epidemiological work of their dishonest predecessors. Also, their funding is largely dependent on vehement anti-smoking organizations like the American Lung Association, which will cease funding them generous grants if they provide epidemiological evidence to the contrary (as was the case with the Japanese Paradox).
Bentley Morgan
I would never advocate that ANYONE smoke cheap, mass produced cigarettes laden with fire-safe chemicals like polyvinyl acetate [a neutoxic glue] with (known defective) and filters on them.
The filters deposit fine strands of cellulose acetate fibers directly into the lung (which themselves are often in fire retardants), eventually resulting inflaming and irreversibly damaging lung tissue. Worse, the filters aeorsolize the smoke (not so dissimilar to nanoparticle toxicity), allowing it to penetrate much more deeply into the lung than it otherwise would (filters strands included).
In fact, I would advocate rolling your own cigarettes which in the USA costs under $1 per pack. The benefits will easily exceed the cost.
Christopher Collins
For the beginner, looking for arguments in layman's terms, I would wholeheartedly recommend the man that revealed the truth about tobacco to me, Dr. William Whitby.
William Whitby, M.D. shows that anti-tobacco "science" isn't science at all!
Now for the science. Examine it for yourself. Again, to this very date scientists have been UNABLE to induce cancer in rodents using tobacco! This is not cherry-picking, all experimental studies show the same result!
>No statistically significant increase in the incidence of malignant lung tumors was seen in either species as a result of smoke exposure, a finding that does not agree with the results of epidemiological studies in humans. Possible reasons for this lack of correlation are given.
To extended it even further, tobacco smoke has anti-carcinogenic properties and protects against cancer.
This shouldn't even come as a surprise to those with a background in medicine after seeing the radon dog study because this makes sense! Tobacco suppresses various cancer growth (eg: IGF-1) factors and the body will upregulate them in response! You can liken this to taking the best medicine for stopping cancer for years on end and you suddenly quit.
Easton Torres
wtf, I love tobacco now.
Michael Evans
Rollie smoker here. The prices of packs in bongistan are truly extortionate, and at the same time they upped regulation (no bags under 30g) and prices on rolling baccy too.
Rolling also makes me smoke less and be more considerate about my urges to smoke, as well as having barely 20% the rancid taste of regular smokes.
David Thompson
I appreciate the post. We will be at the same level here in a few more years. The tax increases have been insane, going up around $1 every two years in most states recently.
I smoke tightly packed unfiltered RYO cigarettes per day and never had any issues. It is the ideal way to consume tobacco.
Jaxon Collins
Easy argument: Japan has highest smoking rate, and lowest lung cancer rate.
Of all the noxious chemicals ingested on day to day basis by anyone living in an industrialised city, Tobacco is the least damaging, and quite probably helpful given than it coats the lungs in relatively harmless natural particles compared to the toxins emitted by cars, power plants, trains,etc, etc.
I've never found rolling tobacco that wasn't years old.
Oliver Scott
What about the tar?
Julian Long
It is accepted mainstream science that smoking can help reduce the symptoms of autoimmune disorders or suppress them entirely (such as ulcerative colitis).
Cigarettes aren't healthy, but with the reduction in smoking and the rise of autoimmune disorders, it is clear that certain people would be better off smoking when it comes to quality of life and even longevity.
Jacob Morgan
fuck off dirty kike.
Julian Collins
When you smoke you inhale benzopyrenes which, when oxidized by the liver, form aromatic epoxides. The nucleotides that make up your DNA are also largely aromatic and nucleophilic. Basically, the epoxidized benzopyrene slips between your DNA basepairs and the makes an irreversible chemical bond between your basepair and the epoxide part. This fucks up your DNA. It doesnt instantly give you cancer, but you basically voluntarily fuck yourself and pay for it. It's like tanning--you pay someone to irradiate you and fuxk your DNA. Smoking is a little worse: lung cancer is worse than skin cancer.
There are so many "studies" of shitty correlations and manipulated statistics. Unless you find a BIOCHEMICAL MECHANISTIC STUDY, you don't have shit. You haven't proven anything. All you have is a correlation that someone coulve made up.
Jordan Perry
I'm sure organic tobacco would be fine to smoke but sadly everyone is smoking ciggs cut with chemicals
Matthew Morris
While i like the jap argument gbe problem with it is japs and anglos are not created equally and you can't compare their body to mine. As humanity as a whole though it's fine
Josiah Miller
If you are a smoker and refuse to rollyour own, buy camels: they have cotton filters rather than fiberglass. Both are dangerous if you smoke the cigarette down too far but fiberglass is like 1000x worse.
Levi Carter
Hitler disapproves
Ian Gray
Speaking esoterically, smoking is one of the best habits I picked up. I smoke maybe 5 rolled cigs a day. I breathe better, I feel better, I look and sound better. I think there's a serious case for the testosterone promoting effects of the substance and for the neuroprotective effects of nicotine.
If you're in good shape, physically active and eating a good diet I really don't accept that smoking tobacco is genuinely harmful. If you're predisposed to cancer, you're predisposed to cancer. My relatives lived into their 80s as smokers and drinkers and so it's no real big thing for me to actually enjoy a smoke when I feel like it.
For my money there's really also nothing better than a crisp fresh pint and a smoke.
Easton Collins
>wanting the approval of an amphetamine junkie
Kayden Long
answer me asshole
Jacob Myers
Please tell me this is satire.
Julian Johnson
>this shill thread again How much does Phillip Morris pay you? Where do I apply? I don't have much integrity
Christopher Rivera
How much of this effect is nicotine? I switched to vape a while back and it would suck if that gave me cancer risk increase.
Hunter Fisher
Precisely my good man. Otherwise known as the 'Japanese Smoker's Paradox'. Harmless as well. The oral cancer links are also built on flawed epidemiological data which only showed a weak correlation between oral tobacco use and cancer rates. Excluding that this is implying causality (major no-no without a valid hypothesis predicated on hard science), and excluding that these are all non-randomized (self-selecting leading to biased sampling), even if this observed link was "true", this data is now worthless. It has been revealed that oral STDs such as HPV are the largest contributors to oral cancer. The older studies did not know this and thus have omitted the most important variable of all. Without this being corrected for, the oral cancer link isn't worth the ink it is printed on!
You might enjoy smoking it if you use quality tobacco and roll/tube it yourself.
Visit stores that receive a lot of business and you will find it fresh.
Kayden Parker
my great grandpa smoked for 70 years, died at 90 of heart attack
is that from the leaf or the chemical shit
dont be obtuse, of course humans are diverse but the reason for disparity is the diet and lifestyle not genetic
Gavin Hernandez
What should I roll? Tops or Bugler?
Angel Young
Bump for rollies. Op thoughts on American eagles?
Jaxon Martin
All Pol is satire. You just didn't notice until now.
Noah Edwards
COPD is still a very real consequence of tobacco abuse. Cigarettes themselves may not be the devil were told, but a pack a day is too much.
Jason Ward
no i smoked joints cigars, cigarillos, hand rolled cigs bongs and other stuff and i hate hot stuff down my throat. i dont like snus either, it stings like fuck, but the positive effects are undeniable. what about vaping nicotine?
David Price
The biggest flaw with "science" as shilled throughout the media and everywhere else, re: global warming, medical stats, etc., (as opposed to the relatively small amounts of 100% known and useful data used in engineering) is that its basically finding patterns in noise. Theres docs showing 80% of peer reviewed papers can't be reviewed.
Basically if it hasn't been turned into a product its probably not real science.
And thats not even counting the basic human instinct for self survival. The fact that 50%+ of people find tobacco good, but don't drink bleach every day should indicate that its probably not that harmful and probably helpful. Instinct is incredibly strong and generally vaguely right.
Ethan Long
lurk more, newfag
Austin Lopez
No, just shills. They've been her a while pushing this
Zachary Reyes
Tar is inherent component of tobacco and it is nearly harmless. Tar is comprised of mostly small organic compounds that the body can readily break down. The lung evolved over hundreds of millions of years as an organ and mechanisms exist in it to filter out and handle particulate matter, especially if they are small, easily broken down compounds. Moreover the "tar" contains potent anti-oxidants like Coenzyme Q10.
In fact, the tar scare resulted in the widespread adoption of cigarette filters, which deposits fine strands of cellulose acetate fibers directly into the lung (which themselves are often in fire retardants), eventually resulting in an irreversible buildup which is the cause of COPD. Moreover, the filters also aerosolise the smoke (essentially allowing it to travel deeper into the lungs, not so dissimilar to the manner of nanoparticle toxicity). COPD/emphysema was much rarer among smokers until the rise of filters. [ studies here: ]
Gabriel Phillips
>The fact that 50%+ of people find tobacco good, Nigger, are you retard? Oh, yeah, you're a smoker, of course you're rerarded
Jacob Evans
I feel like even if the chemicals in cigarettes do have medical benefits (which apparently the studies suggest) there are far better methods of delivery than by inhaling tar-filled smoke. I used to smoke. I've felt a lot healther since I quit.
Owen Howard
Also humans evolved specifically through creating fire, and spending half or more of their days ingesting smoke particles composed of random plants for hours a day. Smoking mirrors that.
Sebastian Thompson
Vaping only contains nicotine and lacks the monoamine oxidase B inhibitors that increase the effectiveness of the nicotine within tobacco. Tobacco also contains a number of other beneficial compounds contribute toward the synergism.
Jayden Rogers
Yeah but nothing that effects longevity past child bearing age is an evolutionary pressure.
Ryder Jones
Counting only adult males, about 30% of the world smokes regularly, and over 50% smoke occasionally.
Gavin James
V A P E
Connor Brooks
The filters are to blame, see the other posts.
Isaiah Young
You do know there's a reason you stand upwind of fire, right? >statistics pulled right out of a shills ass
Andrew Rivera
>explain schizophrenic high rate of smoking, but lower incidence of lung cancer than general population. what is the mechanism
Gabriel Lopez
Since child producing age for males is your entire life, and women up to about 40 or so, any environmental pressure will be adapted for.
One of the major reasons we were so evolutionarily successful is because we conquered fire, and used it to keep ourselves warm, lighted, and to make food in millions of environments. Individuals who were better at producing and raising offspring in this environment did better. Ergo humans are evolved to be good at being surrounded by smoke particles.
Carter Gomez
what kind of rolling tobacco should I get?
Luke Richardson
Sorry guys I tried. I literally can't refute any of this. WTF I love smoking now.
Elijah Evans
That's just not true, or at least not the whole story. COPD can be caused by any fine particulate matter, it is a problem for woodworkers for example. It is impossible to believe that cigarette smoke is the ONLY thing that can't cause COPD when inhaled.
I believe you that certain types of filters exacerbate the problem, but the problem isn't the filters themselves.
Jacob Jones
None, because it's garbage. Go eat out of a dumpster, it'll be basically the same.
Dylan Lee
Put it this way: Nicotine is arguably the safest chemical in cigarettes/tobacco products.
Nicotine is a known carcinogen. Stop posting any time.
Julian Sanders
Isn't rolling your own cigarettes better? What should I get then?
Blake Martin
Acutely in small doses yes. But it's a pretty powerful cardiac stimulant which can acutely increase your risk of heart attack. In large enough doses though it will induce one acutely. But it's also got a ton of cognitive benefits. Schizophrenics describe smoking a cigarette as sometimes being able to completely halt an episode.
Levi Ward
Checked. Better brainpower. Cancer is reflective of low will to live and general patheticness
Dominic Adams
I like bugler
Nathan Morales
And the most beneficial, but that doesn't mean that it is THE anti-carcinogen in cigs OP claims, that could be any number of the other components.
Luke Long
He himself was a smoker from youth until late 20s. It cannot be understate the changes to the 'the default mode network' that nicotine and especially tobacco as a whole can trigger. Without these beneficial changes, which are life-lasting, he would have been a different man altogether. It increased the efficiency of his brain, causing spontaneity, increasing his ability to put thought to words and increasing the sensitivity of the motivational regions. Without tobacco, Hitler very likely would have been a nobody!
It should be noted that tobacco was much more basic back then and more easily burned tissue, contributing to his chronic cough, which is why he gave it up. Pipe smokers, think tongue bite of the lung.
Jack Richardson
99% of the smoke from smokers smells awful but theres that 1% that almost makes me want to start smoking. I wishi knew what it was. It smells really good.
Jackson Fisher
understated*
Anthony Martinez
>Although there is insufficient evidence to classify nicotine as a carcinogen, there is an ongoing debate about whether it functions as a tumor promoter.[61] In vitro studies have associated it with cancer, but carcinogenicity has not been demonstrated in vivo.[23] There is inadequate research to demonstrate that nicotine is associated with cancer in humans, but there is evidence indicating possible oral, esophageal, or pancreatic cancer risks
>Nicotine replacement products have not been shown to be associated with cancer in the real world.[23]
Actually it might not be, it's really smoking that is the issue.
Kayden Nelson
>Isn't rolling your own cigarettes better? No, don't believe the shills.
Christian Ward
Amber leaf is good if you guys have it over there
Jose Wood
Patently false, even people who believe in anti-smoking science do not label nicotine as a carcinogen.
William Torres
fucking nords and their snus.
Julian Rogers
So what you guys are saying is that if I want to go full ubermacht I should be smoking a tobacco pipe?
Nathaniel Hall
good post.
lots of bluepilled fags and shills to follow: emotional argument
emo argument, no data
more shilly bluepill faggotry, no arguments
no arguments. kys
refute or stfu
Ethan Roberts
>implying fire smoke is similar puffing on a combustible plant that has been smoked for a long time. >I wouldnt smoke poison ivy, would you?
Luke Parker
Pipe smoke smells gorgeous, shame nobody smokes them any more.
Lincoln Hughes
>died at 90 of heart attack believable. nicotine is a vasoconstrictor.
Luis Walker
No, it isn't. Nicotine us fine for you. You just shouldn't breathe smoke to get it because that would be a retarded thing to do.
Jace Brooks
what is this mechanism? >I wouldn't say nicotine's mechanisms are that large in brain chemistry >is something happening at the acth nictonic receptors?
Blake Ross
There's a difference between tobacco and cigarettes/cigars. Everyone knows smoking tobacco itself is fine, but very few people do that.
Liam Powell
If you want to be a filthy low-class piece of garbage paying the jews for a bad habit you should smoke. Only shills here are you and OP >Pipe smoke smells gorgeous Yeah, go ahead believing that.
Parker Morgan
I've read these studies before and they're really interesting to me. Notably cases of people who quit smoking and then develop terminal illnesses only after they quit.
Is it the tobacco or the nicotine that suppresses IGF?
Jose Rivera
This is an elaborate KYS larp. To be a smoker you have coat your lung with tar and the nicotine is released into you blood stream for about 30 minutes. The tar prevents oxygen from getting tour your bodies cells uncreasing a risk in various deseases. Dont be stupid
Josiah Edwards
Tobacco is the last remaining massive industry that isn't jew owned. kys
Connor Baker
Thousands of food items that we consume on a daily basis are also mutagens and even minute radiation from the sun inflict the same DNA alterations. Cooked meats contained mutagens. Toast contains mutagens that alter DNA in the same manner you have proposed. Why single out tobacco? There are also protective compounds within tobacco smoke that offset, or completely block entirely the mutagenic effect. I should remind you that smoker's telomers are observed to be longer (with strong significance) than non-smokers. This does not make sense if it was a strong mutagen as mutagens shorten telomeres! Hormesis also occurs where by exposing yourself to this damage at very low dosages, the body is able to upregulate the mechanisms that attenuate it.
Aiden Edwards
Every smoker I know is crack-tier addicted to it and couldn't go 2 hours without NEEDING their nicotine fix. Most of them also say it strains on their breathing or lung capacity.
Dominic Morris
>sugar is also a tumor promoter
Luis Hernandez
>all these sources >all this science >mfw no one even attempts to refute any of it What the fuck guys, do I love smoking now or not. I dont regret cutting Phillip Morris out of my life, but I'm not seeing any counterargument here.
Chase Moore
>Tobacco is the last remaining massive industry that isn't jew owned That's a straight lie and you know it. That garbage "industry" has always been run and pushed by jews.
Jayden Gutierrez
read the abstract, couldn't acsess the entire study. but everything it says is basicly they couldn't give cancer to rodents by blowing smoke on them. smokers have a much higher risk of developing cancer. be it the lung, oral cavity, larynx or even bladder. that's fact. cancer isn't even the biggest issue though. copd (a disease that will constantly make you feel as if your suffucating in it's late stages) and vascular disease make up the larger part of the negative health effects. of course it all depends on the dosage. three cigs a day probably won't hurt. but since that shit is addictive why toy with it. i smoked for 10 years. quitting was a bitch.
Kayden Reyes
No counter studies needed. Google image search smokers lung, then decide if its healthy.
Jordan Powell
>carcinogenic effect is weak >does not mean COPD effects are not strong.
Kayden Peterson
>this thread
Christopher Morgan
Wood pulp contains lignin and other heavy complex compounds that the body finds hard to break down. Tobacco once again is comprised of mostly small organic compounds. Interesting though, adding to your argument of particularization, is the fact that cigarette filters aerosolize and diffuse the smoke dispersing, which you should at least be able to meet me on with one reason WHY a filtered cigarette would be so much more damning for the development of COPD. See this academic.oup.com/jnci/article-abstract/109/12/djx075/3836090/Cigarette-Filter-Ventilation-and-its-Relationship
Although I cant find it, I recall that smoking pipe and inhaling is does not have a statistically significant relationship to emphysema. Try to find the FDA studies published in the 70s.
Henry Robinson
I've known this was all bullshit when they showed us 20+ pics of miner's black lung and told us it was smokers in health class freshman year. Also a study that put gas masks on chimps and forced 2 packs of smoke into their lungs a day and recirculated the 2nd hand smoke back into their masks so they completely absorbed 100% of the smoke, and then when the chimps died (probably suffocation) they said "see cigarettes are bad"
A small amount of smoking is beneficial for the lungs, the smoke kicks the lungs into clean out mode and can help clean out other particles too. The body can clean 6-10 cigs worth of tar out of the lungs per day, so don't go over and it won't build up. Nicotine has been proven to lower your risk of dementia, and if you have ever seen someone die from dementia you'll know it's one of the worst ways to go, forgetting your entire life and everyone you love, trapped inside your body alone and confused as strangers who used to be your family visit you maybe once a week.
Brandon Cook
a lot of people only smoke while drinking. what does it mean for them? >myself included I only want to smoke while drinking. >smoking a cig while sober never >use snus at work sometimes am I fucked or good? >know a lot of people who only smoke while drinking. will there be mao issues?
am I fucked.
Gavin Carter
Why does leftypol make these threads. they dont even make fake info graphics with graphs and fake citations.
So low energy.
Nicholas Brooks
>does nothing to refute the claim that smokers lung has not been conclusively linked to smoking tobacco Please, sir, you're not doing yourself any favors
Landon Anderson
Smoker's lung is a myth and it is impossible for it to be distinguished by eye by trained pathologist whether or not the person in question was a smoker, See pic related here: ( )
Jayden Walker
Benzopyrenes are generated whenerver you burn/char something with organic matter. It's a combustion by-product.
Here's the Science paper where some folks linked smoking with benzopyrenes. You can get them from any kind of cooked/charred meats (these, too increase incidences of cancer--vegans/vegetarians quote these statistics all the time), but smkoing tobacco generates a lot more and puts them directly in your bloodstream via the lungs. Sure, some bozo may have found some helpful compounds in tobacco smoke via GC/HPLC/whatever other analytical method, but if there's not a MOLECULAR MECHANISM that's been flushed out, it might as well be not real. Your body may not even absorb whatever molecules.
what is the difference between these two 1987 and 2014 7/11 vidoes? back then you were free to smoke in the store and no one cared. now people get upset if you smoke too close to a door. anti smoking is a way to push government control and create a nation of anti-smoking cucks
Alexander Ortiz
I already agreed with you on filters and I'm open to new ideas, but you are irresponsible to claim that cigarettes are healthy for you. There may be truth to the claim that you are better off smoking than not, but those benefits come with their own costs which should not be hidden.
Nolan Watson
I honestly think this is just some new form of tobacco shilling. They're trying to get people to smoke somehow without really being able to advertise for it anymore. Some people here are so desperate to seem like they're smarter than the normies they'll believe any bs.
