© bureaucrash.com
"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves." - Abraham LincolnI was born in Iran in 1985 when the country was recovering from the effects of the 1979 revolution and the fascist take-over of the Islamic Republic. That, however, is not what I want to write about today. I'm writing about my experiences throughout my life with smoking and anti-smoking, and how closely the anti-smoking lobby, and the social attitudes it has produced, resembles fascism.
My father was a smoker, and my mom was not. In fact, after my parent's divorce, my mom became a complete anti-smoker. One reason was perhaps because she associated smoking with my father, whom she had begun to dislike. I had a different idea of smoking. Most of my father's family smoked, and I had nothing but fond memories from smokers - especially my father. The smell of tobacco on his clothes when he held me, the look of pleasure when he lit up a smoke after a nice meal and the hours of conversation that was spent between adults around the hookah.
My first experience with the anti-smoking lobby came one day at school, when my school (which, I should mention, was a complete by-product of the Islamic Republic's religious belief system) dedicated a whole day to inform children about the harmful effects of smoking and how we should all convince our parents to stop smoking if we wanted them to live. They even gave us stickers to take home with us that said, "Dear parent: do you want to live to see me grow up? Then stop smoking now!"
I remember being quite shocked and scared after that 'lesson' about smoking. I cried thinking my dad was surely going to die because he smoked a lot! My parents had divorced at that time, so when I went home I waited for my dad to come pick me up from my mom's house for our daily visit. When I returned home, I was still quite upset so my mom asked me what was the matter and I told her that I thought my dad was going to die because he smoked. She didn't say much except that smoking was indeed very bad and to go ahead and give my dad the sticker. When my dad came to pick me up, he was shocked to see my sad face and my puffy eyes from crying all day. I told him what had happened, gave him the sticker and begged him through tears to stop smoking. He became upset too, and in a low voice he said, "I'll try." But that wasn't good enough for me. I told him, "But don't you want to live to see me grow up?" He said, "Of course I do, but life is more complicated than that." Then he faced my mom and asked, "What kind of crap have they been teaching her in school?!?" My mom replied, "I happen to agree with what they taught!" And he replied, "Since when do you agree with the fascists of Islamic Republic?" My mom went silent and said nothing else.
Coloured smoke art: River deep, by Graham Jeffrey
But I also notice that in schools and many other places the anti-smoking lobby had been hard at work.
My dad came for a visit, and during his stay he made a couple of comments about how anti-smoking was so bad here, but I didn't really pay attention.
In my early teens I started smoking and I hid it from my mother. In fact, I hide it from her to this day because I believe she doesn't have the capability of understand why I do it. She's so mind-programmed about it and once openly admitted to me that she's an anti-smoking fascist. It happened when we were having a discussion about how happy she was that they were banning smoking in parks and beaches in Vancouver, and that smokers have to be five meters away from any retail store if they want to smoke. I told her that I thought this was pure fascism at work, and she said, "Well, if being an anti-smoker is being a fascist, than I guess I'm a fascist!"
By this time I was a fully grown adult and, being a regular reader of SOTT.net, I began to study many things, from psychology to the benefits of smoking and the similarities between anti-smokers and the totalitarian mind-set.
Before I go on, I want to share with the reader just some of the articles I've read in the past that discuss the benefits of smoking.
© unknown
Smoking Helps Protect Against Lung Cancer
Smoking does NOT cause lung cancer, in fact it just might protect you from nuclear fallout
Lies, Damned Lies & 400,000 Smoking-related Deaths: Cooking the Data in the Fascists' Anti-Smoking Crusade
5 Health Benefits of Smoking
Does Smoking Help Protect the Joints?
Long-Term Smoking Protects Against Parkinson's, Study Confirms
Warning: Nicotine Seriously Improves Health
Let's All Light Up!
So, as we can see, smoking tobacco does indeed have benefits for some people. But most people, even those who are well educated and hold the highest degrees (like my mom) can't arrive at the simple fact that smoking could be good and not what it has been propagated to be.
I've noticed some readers of this site comment on smoking articles by stating how smoking tobacco makes them cough, and that it is not good for them, so I want to emphasise that smoking is beneficial for some, but not all. Smoking is like anything else in life; you do it if your body doesn't object. Everyone's genetics and bodies differ from one another so it is up to you to decide through research and experimentation whether or not you are someone who can benefit from smoking. Neither I nor anyone is stating that you should start smoking if you never have, or that you should return to it if you have tried it and it doesn't go with you.
All I want to do by writing this article is to point out that smoking tobacco does have benefits for some and that the government and anti-smoking lobby has gone out of its way in trying to stop people from realising this.
Why?
Another good question we might ask ourselves is; when has the government and Big Pharma EVER told the truth? When have they ever had the people's best interests at heart? If the answer to that for you is "never", then why would the anti-smoking campaign be any different from any other lie they've ever told?
It is also worth mentioning that as a result of my research into smoking, I've discovered that the true benefit of tobacco comes with smoking organic tobacco. Not mass-produced cigarettes which contain many chemicals that are harmful to the body. This gives pause when thinking about cancer caused by smoking. In truth, the cancers associated with smoking, assuming that they are causally related, most likely result from ingesting all the harmful chemicals added to cigarettes, not the actual tobacco!
So let's speculate a bit on why your government doesn't want you to smoke. As the writer in one of the articles above wrote:
Every year, thousands of medical doctors and other members of the "Anti-Smoking Inquisition" spend billions of dollars perpetuating what has unquestionably become the most misleading though successful social engineering scam in history. With the encouragement of most western governments, these Orwellian lobbyists pursue smokers with a fanatical zeal that completely overshadows the ridiculous American alcohol prohibition debacle, which started in 1919 and lasted until 1933.Consider the cold hard fact that the world is currently run by psychopaths. Leaving aside the health benefits of smoking, smoking should be a free choice irrespective of what it does to our minds and bodies! In this day and age however, we have steadily been giving up our basic rights as humans. This is why I say that the anti-smoking lobby is essentially a manifestation of fascism. The psychopaths are practicing their control over us (and getting great enjoyment from it too) by preventing us from smoking.
Nowadays we look back on American prohibition with justifiable astonishment. Is it really true that an entire nation allowed itself to be denied a beer or scotch by a tiny group of tambourine-bashing fanatics? Sadly, yes it is, despite a total lack of evidence that alcohol causes any harm to humans, unless consumed in truly astronomical quantities.
Alas, the safety of alcohol was of no interest to the tambourine-bashers, for whom control over others was the one and only true goal. Americans were visibly "sinning" by enjoying themselves having a few alcoholic drinks, and the puritans interceded on behalf of God to make them all feel miserable again.
Although there is no direct link between alcohol and tobacco, the history of American prohibition is important, because it helps us understand how a tiny number of zealots managed to control the behavior and lives of tens of millions of people. Nowadays exactly the same thing is happening to smokers, though this time it is at the hands of government zealots and ignorant medical practitioners rather than tambourine-bashing religious fanatics.
I have spoken to many old timers in my city who told me that they used to be able to smoke in theatres, buses, trains, planes, restaurants, bars and pretty much anywhere. Now, some of us can't even smoke on sidewalks! And the anti-smoking fascism isn't limited to the US or Canada. It has literally taken over the world!
We could even speculate further about why the psychopaths in the government/Big Pharma don't want you to smoke.
If we go back to the health benefits of smoking, we can clearly see that smoking helps cure or at least prevent diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. Now think to yourself, how many thousands of people suffer from those diseases? How much money does Big Pharma make on prescription drugs and 'treatment' for these diseases? Why would they not want people to know about what actually helps their health and stops their ailments? Because, simply put, there is no profit in it. Big Pharma is not in the business of curing people. It is in the business of making profit off of people's sickness. More sick people equals more profit. Without good health, we're walking sacks of money to those psychos; just healthy enough to run the machines and do their work for them, but so worn down by the stress of modern living that we can barely function, let alone pay attention to the rapidly changing reality. That is another good reason why good health is important.
© unknown
I began writing this by explaining about the place I grew up which was (and to be honest, still is) a blatantly fascist state. From how my own mother's mentality went from someone who disliked smoking to someone who openly admits that when it comes to smoking, she's a fascist. From witnessing the world around me in Canada change, year by year to a more authoritarian place. And all because of what? A selected few who get their jollies by controlling others. Did you know that politicians in both the US Congress and the European Parliament exempted themselves from smoking bans in Washington, D.C. and Brussels?! This means that the lawmakers who passed the laws banning smoking in the US and EU are allowed to smoke while us subhumans can all go eat cake. The hypocrisy, lies and disinformation are so rampant and glaringly obvious but most people simply refuse to acknowledge it, preferring instead to pretend that they are free in a world where they have no real choices.
I think a quote from George Orwell's Animal Farm best describes the situation:
"All animals are equal. But some animals are more equal than others."Psychopathy is truly a fast-acting and fast-spreading disease. Take a look around you, at all the things psychopaths have done to our world. Inform yourselves and others about psychopathy. We have to do something, before it's too late and all our liberties are taken from us. I think just knowing about it could a tremendous step in the right direction.
"The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it." John Stewart Mill
© Scarlet BegoniasAwareness of humanity's intra-species predator is growing: Political Ponerology and Fishead, the movie, get an airing at Occupy Los Angeles.
Help us spread the word at YOUR local Occupy protest!
Help us spread the word at YOUR local Occupy protest!
Reader Comments
Someone once said - " its not that smoking is cool, its just that cool people smoke" Perhaps there is some truth to it as smokers seem to be more social! The best friends I met in school were the ones that all rushed out between classes in the - 20 degree weather with out coats to sneak in a smoke during breaks ... shivering, smoking, making fun of ourselves it was great !!
First off I don't smoke. But I can see how people are being brain washed into believing smoking is so bad. I was at the library in GreenBay, WI and I came across a book way back in the library. The title was Native Americans and Tobacco. In this book it talked about how Native Americans believed tobacco cures over six hundred different diseases ! And another time I stopped in at rummage sale and bought a book that talked about healing. In this book a doctor who went to medical school in the USA said if you want to cure cancer smoke tobacco. He also said the medical system in the US is a bunch of BS. He was from Japan !
I can say that the crowd in front of the Barcelona World Trade Center last weekend looked quite healthy. In fact, we were happy! Every pause in the conference gave an opportunity to relish our right to smoke, relax, and CHOOSE the way take in the life. And thanks to SOTT and articles like this one, each of us was proud to smoke in the knowledge that it's not only good, it's good for you! Gone were the days of making fun of ourselves, by all means, we were simply making fun. It was almost like a tobacco trade show with the way people were admiring different blends, sharing tips, and LIGHTing each other up. Ark made a nice point during the Q&A: the great scientific minds of the 18th and 19th century were smokers, before advertising and before cigarette vending machines. They might have even gone out of their way to procure tobacco, something which may become again a necessity for great minds of the 21st century.
I'm not young now, near the 60!
All my friends and family smokers , even much older than me, are still alive. The people I lost were no smoking one ! even my niece died at 40 because of having living in asbestos buildings...
Tobacco is smoke from millennium years to relax, helping to think, and a social way to be open to talk with others. All the bad now as you have to be brainless, to not think, to be always anxious and stressing so the Chemical industry can sale to you expensive cheat to make you just a stupid forever chemical addicted.
So if Tobacco is addicting , at least it's in a good real life and smart way.
So guy stop to smoke and run fast to the chemical brainless business way and then don't be surprised if forever you will just be a brainless SLAVE.
By My side I just care to smoke or use pure tobacco, only tobacco 100%, not easy to find now .
I'm hearing a lot about when doctors and GPs deal with older patients and they advise them to NOT give up smoking, as it can actually harm them because of their age? I think almost everyone must know of someone older personally, who has given up smoking and seen their health overall deteriorate.... I know a few folk who this has happened to.
Folks giving up smoking I know also blame the high cost as their reason for quitting.... nearly ยฃ7 a packet here in the UK, bloody scandalous.
Well my father quit when he was about 60. Within a year or two a bunch of health problems began, from strange skin conditions to breathing problems, besides he gained about 20 pounds and was eating hard candy and other junk because he went cold turkey. (When he was younger he worked for about 8 years in a highly toxic electric condenser plant in Soviet Armenia -- long story -- but the fumes were categorized as the highest toxic hazard under Soviet regulations).
He had some kind of skin infection on his hand, or so it seemed, in around 1990. He went to a doctor who thought it might be a spider bite. They gave him Cipro antibiotic and he got worse and went to the hospital. They continued IV antibiotic (Cipro) in the hospital. He got much worse and had very bad gastrointestinal problems because of it for several months after. (He always knew he was allergic to Penicelin which was written in his health records).
Anyway, we went to an alternative health practitioner a few months later, and he said that it isn't that uncommon for long time smokers to develop health problems after quitting, particularly skin eruptions. This guy was also very skeptical of vegetarian diets by the way -- he thought optimal nutrition HAD to include meat. My father's health improved after about a year of different supplement and diet based treatment program by this alternate health practitioner (who had saved my girlfriend's grandmother's life about a year earlier).
My brother and I have been smoking since we're teenagers, and NEVER plan to quit. :-)
I recently attended a movie with a friend and his wife. His wife is an endurance athlete (runner) and I am a smoker over half a century old--and devout consumer of copious amounts of saturated fat, I might add. My friend is a devout consumer of wheat products.
We playfully raced up the fairly long staircase to the second floor of the theater. While we were talking at the top of the stairs, I noticed that my friend was breathing very heavily, while neither my or my friend's wife's bodies showed any signs of exertion.
Signs are all over the place around here these days reminding people that they cannot smoke withing 10 feet of where people are eating...which means no smoking outdoors at cafes--cafes that have long counters filled with wheat and sugar concoctions that are slowly killing people. A nearby town has even outlawed public smoking completely, even in your own car!
Land of the free and home of the brave? Nothing of the sort, unless you mean it ironically. There is not one single scientific study that shows anything even close to a correlation between secondhand smoke and any disease, yet the scientific literature is filled with strong correlations between disease and the junk Americans commonly call food. The USDA has even included processed "cheese" slices and canned fruits on its food pyramid.
To put it bluntly, the state of health in the U.S. is a cruel and sick joke. You have to ask yourself why it is that governmental agencies that show utter disregard for human health would spend so much time and money trying to get people to stop smoking. Could it due to the fact that nicotine opens acytelcholine receptors in the brain, which has a positive effect on learning and memory, which might lead to people seeing through the mask of the pathological folks in power?
I had similar positive effects of smoking.
I started working a job a few years ago that required going up many large flights of stairs to do inspections of rooftop equipment on tall buildings that had usually dead elevators. I've always had the strength to do 2 or 3 steps at a time, but this feeling in my throat and lungs like dryness or pain would happen always. I also had the same issue when running, since junior high school.
I started smoking a few months later (before I smoked occasionally), driven by co worker encouragement (lol). Within a few months, I noticed that my throat/lungs no longer have that pain when exerting myself on those stairs or even running!
Last winter I had a coughing fit at work from the cold dry air. I forgot my cigarettes that day. My co worker said I was coughing because of the smoking. I told him, actually I could use a cigarette to stop. He laughed and didn't believe me but asked someone for a cigarette and gave it to me. I smoked it and the coughing dissapeared, LOL!
you got through your childhood with an open mind and didn't fall prey to indoctrination. I smoke, but I know it's not for everyone, it depends on your personality. I recently went to a physician for a second opinion and he did a chest measurement for lung capacity as well as listening to my lungs through various types of breathing simply because I smoke. I am 53, and he said my lungs sounded better than his and he's a non-smoker aged 63. He was impressed, so I told him not to believe everything he reads. Another physician gave me a chest x-ray simply because I smoke. If he had told me the "need" for the x-ray up front, I would have refused. He was also amazed that my lungs are clear and said it was "remarkable". It probably helps that I don't inhale the smoke and I know how to breathe.
About 7 years ago when I worked for a company that makes a lot of their profit from the sale of tobacco products , I attended an event where we had a speaker from the Tobacco Industry. This speaker educated us on the terms of the Master Settlement, and also told us the future of tobacco was headed towards being regulated by the FDA, to be given by prescription only from a DR. Phillip Morris would be the only supplier. Phillip Morris would have a monopoly.
Obviously, this presentation was given by a competitor of Phillip Morris. However, the new labeling of cigarettes is right in line with what I heard that day.
Oh, by the way, it's just cigarettes. Cigars, little cigars, chewing tobacco, dip, snuff are not included in the regulations.
Do you know you cannot put cigarettes on the counter for sale at a store, they all have to be behind the counter, and also advertisement is regulated inside and outside.
But any other tobacco products can be on the counter, with no government regulations about advertising?
"Another physician gave me a chest x-ray simply because I smoke. If he had told me the "need" for the x-ray up front, I would have refused. He was also amazed that my lungs are clear and said it was "remarkable". It probably helps that I don't inhale the smoke and I know how to breathe."
You don't inhale? Oh, I do. I take it all the way down to my boots. I've been a smoker since a teen, and haven't had a cold/flu/nothing since the Eighties.
Anyway.... a similar thing happened to me some years ago: I broke my arm and cracked a rib after a cycling accident and had to have my chest X-ray-ed at The Royal Free in Hampstead. After a long wait, a well-spoken nurse came over with the results....
Nurse: Do you smoke cigarettes, Mr *****?
Me: Yes.
Nurse: How many?
Me: Oh, about thirty a day.
Nurse: Well, Mr *****, you have a very beautiful pair of lungs!
.
You'd think that eventually, the docs would catch on... but alas, no.
So besides the lack of scientific evidence showing a causal relationship of smoking and lung cancer, based on my own life experience and observation, I think it's just another big lie. The benefits of smoking are definitely worth exploring because there's MUCH more evidence for the benefits than the detriments proclaimed by the anti-smoking propaganda.
reverse psychology, it works both ways.
It's not about concern for your health, but control, thru fear....the prison/military industrial complex runs the show
gore said:
"It's called.. reverse psychology, it works both ways. It's not about concern for your health, but control, thru fear...."
Well that's the front end. Behind that....
Nicotine mimics the neurotransmitter acetylcholine. Cellphone radiation destroys acetylcholine (orig. "Vagusstoff". German: "Vagus Substance"), in the light of which perhaps those wishing to navigate the current age should ditch the cellphones and get on the cigarettes.....
[Link]
Wandering around "Occupy St. Paul's" the other day, observing all the demonstrators with their wi-fi laptops and mobiles, and observing all the City boys with their mobiles and wi-fi laptops, the same thought occurred to me that has occurred to me over and over again since pre-911. No matter what a person's social, cultural, financial, political, or philosophical outlook is - The EM age has raised a generation of alchemical eunuchs, and until this situation is recognised and ameliorated, all talk of spontaneous "great awakenings" is most likely just the result of bad navigation..
Well, they have this thing going called "professionalism".
Professionalism, in the sense that it's mainly used these days seems to have very little do with excelling at one's job, using one's brain, being competent even. It's mainly about having a good front, spellbinding the customers, spellbinding the self, and keeping the gig.
And of course, in the world of work, people that do excel at their jobs, do use their brains etc, are liable to be pushed under by those that play the "professionalism" game, in an Amadeus/Salieri fashion.
I supervise graduates at my workplace, hardly any of them are capable of doing even basic things like reading, writing, or rolling up their sleeves and getting on with a bit of work. It's almost convinced me that a bachelor's degree is nothing more than a very expensive pair of trainers. If you tell some of these people to put their blackberries away when they should be working, they start panicking and flipping out from withdrawal after about ten minutes They really can't help themselves.
Guy Debord once said this society had gone "from being, to having, to merely appearing", I'm semi-tempted to add "to disappearing".
I'm totally opposed to health-fascism - as any thinking individual should be. However the writer completely ignores the externalities associated with his addiction-of-choice (and let's not pretend that it's anything else).
If I walk past (or behind, or downwind of) a smoker for any length of time, my clothes wind up smelling in ways I don't like. That's avoidable most of the time - I can simply change my course to give them a wide berth: it's a very small cost, but it's not zero, and it's not the result of my actions.
But when it's NOT avoidable, I wind up smelling like an ashtray simply because some clod wanted to be identified with cool kids when he was in his early teens (and let's drop the stupid pretence that people take up smoking for any other reason) and wound up addicted.
As to the 'health benefits' touted in the links - come on. One of the most unassailable statistical linkages in human history, is the link between cigarettes and early death (I say this as one who COMPLETELY dismisses the 'second hand smoke' hypothesis, based purely on the fact that the empirical evidence is statistically indefensible: I might hate the stench, but I don't claim that it's injurious to my health).
Tobacco 'au naturel' might well be a mixed blessing, but modern industrially-produced cigarettes are a toxic nightmare - and asserting otherwise is nonsense. Plus, the idea of getting a TINY change to your mood using such a delivery mechanism... it's weak. If I was going to take such a trade I would want to smoke weed or DMT (I only consume weed through cookies, lollies etc).
By all means, assert your right to smoke - it's your body, and you ought to be able to do with it whatever you want. That's why I support total abolition of Prohibition.
BUT... when you flick that cigarette butt away, or even drop ash on the ground, you're imposing costs on others (quite apart from the stink). Someone ELSE cleans up your detritus.
And when you die gasping from emphysema or lung cancer, don't throw yourself on the public health system... that would be hypocritical for someone so keen on their individual liberty.
Let's say I liked pissing on people who got to close to me (I find the smell of piss less gross than the smell of cigarettes), or I liked to wipe my hand up my sweaty buttcrack and smear it on passers-by... I could use precisely the same logic as smokers claim:
* people who didn't want to be pissed on (or walk through my piss)* could move to the other side of the street;
* the effects of getting piss on your shoes is less lingering than getting smoke on a jacket (because smoke is full of burnt oils whose stench is more persistent);
* I should have the right to do as I want with my body;
* pissing is healthy and natural (stink-palms are less natural, but funnier).
I could put some crap in there about what Native Americans did with their piss, but as a proud member of a different primitive tribal society (NZ Maori) I still think stupid idealised obsessions with what Stone Age primitives thought about stuff is not very useful.
And yet I don't piss on passers-by (and I only stink-palm people who I think deserve it... smokers, mostly).
I don't refrain because there's a social sanction (I don't give a flying rat's ass about social sanctions... mob psychology doesn't interest me), but because I understand that to do so involves imposing external costs - however small - that need not be imposed.
The Golden Rule, bitchez: that's the key. If you are the sort of person who would be grossed out by a stink-palm, then you ought to think several times before you inflict your smokers' stench on others.
And lastly but not leastly: women who smoke might feel grown up in their teens, but they look like leathery wrinkled horrors by their late 30s (particularly if they have a specific expression of P51)... mouth like a cat's bum, eyebags, orange mouth, grey teeth... we all know the look. And for chicks under 20, I will leave you with what we lads said to one another in our late teens:
"If she's a smoker, she'll let you poke 'er." (because smoking indicates a deep-seated desire for acceptance).
Or, as my mate Mav says: "if a chick will suck on one of those stinking things, she'll suck a dick. 100%, man."
Fnord.
The stench of your filthy language is MUCH worse than the smoke from the worst smelling cigarette could ever compete with, or the strongest smelling cigar for that matter. You have written a misanthropic and misogynistic diatribe that says so much about your psychological hygiene that the smell of smoke on your clothes should be the least of your problems.
Your vile insinuations are toxic in ways with which no commercially produced cigarette, no matter with how many ever chemical additives, can be compared. When you wrote "... when you flick that cigarette butt away, or even drop ash on the ground, you're imposing costs on others (quite apart from the stink)," it cannot be compared by any minimally reasonable person to the filth you have flicked throughout your comment; and it is a cost to a healthy society that cannot be compared with ashes or cigarette butts in any sane way in the overall scheme of things.
You wrote: "One of the most unassailable statistical linkages in human history, is the link between cigarettes and early death...." Really? So lets get a look at the data that makes this most "unassailable statistical linkage and analyze it. Will it stand up to scrutiny? Give some sources to these statistics that have not already been thoroughly shown to be utter bunkum in the links in the above article. Besides, from your hateful attitude toward the smokers who impudently stink up your precious clothing, it shouldn't bother you too much that we smokers will have such an early death, should it? You did say you "COMPLETELY dismiss the 'second hand smoke' hypothesis" so only the smokers that have been fouling up your clothes will meet with early death -- poetic justice in a twisted mind as yours, no?
I'll go and stimulate my vagus nerve and open my nicotinic acetylcholine receptors some more with such a pleasurable act as smoking as an antidote to the to your obscene invective.
As for health costs:
Actually there was a study that showed that smokers cost less in health care costs because supposedly they live not as long. Of course the studies don't really show that as they have been hand picking the sample groups (if you have read other articles here you might have seen it).
Hearing about the research about Alzheimer's and nicotine from a friend that is a neuroscience PhD, it would cost the system less. The problem is that these studies don't get as much play as the negatives. Yes, the same scientific establishment that promotes whole grains despite the issues of gluten. Well, that's another story!
Oh and whenever I can, I try to find an ashtray to smoke and not smoke around people. You do know that smokers are humans too, and like any human, some of them are considerate.
Yeah girl, you know what's really happening.
Well...this is intriguing and I will have to check out a couple of those pro smoking articles. I'm a closet social smoker, on and off over the years, mostly off but now I am smoking about a cigarette or sometimes two per day, in a family in which, so far as I know, not one person smokes or has ever considered smoking.
Being mostly of a nonsmoking mindset, I have become nonetheless outspokenly irritated at the way in which hospitals are adopting nonsmoking campus policies, making it impossible for employees to smoke and the patients as well. They don't tell you when you sign up for that elective surgery that, by the way, you're going cold turkey.
Nonetheless and some of the stories above notwithstanding, I listen to a lot of lungs and I live in a high smoking part of the country. When I hear a particularly clear pair on an older person, I usually say, "You don't smoke, do you?" And I'm usually right.
So I'm thinking moderation in all things. Perhaps a few cigarettes per day could be good, but the all day smoking people do, I'm not buying it. Sure the Native Americans revere tobacco but they didn't smoke cigarettes all day. It was ceremonial.
Unfortunately, I have been able to locate one store that sells American Spirit, and while those do not have the 400 chemicals, even they do not carry the organic ones. I found out that artificial fertilizer increases greatly the uptake of radioactive elements in the soil into the tobacco leaf. So this radioactivity might be responsible for some of the cancer. Now, American Spirit does have a light variety, but it is so strong I find I don't really enjoy them. I like very light cigarettes although excellent quality tobacco might be an option. I wish I could smoke my one or two cigarettes a day with a mild, organic brand. But I don't know of one.
I think Big Pharma has several areas of interest in the anti-smoking movement. First, when society stopped smoking in large numbers, the use of anti-depressants, anti-anxiety meds as well as attentional meds like Ritalin and Adderal went through the roof. Lots of money there. Also, the "smoking cessation" products like nicotine patches and nicotine gum are made by Big Pharma.
During the numerous times I have been a nonsmoker I never had the experience you describe of my clothes smelling from being around others who smoke.
In fact, a few decades back I remember being in the smokiest room probably anyone here has ever seen, and I specifically remember when I left I did not feel cause to change my clothes or take them to the dry cleaners. (I do remember what I was wearing that night and it was all dry-clean only, plus my coat; but sorry, I did not "stink" from other people's cigarettes at all.)
I used to like being both a smoker and a non-smoker and going back and forth with little difficulty, and enjoying both it both ways. I guess I'm just one of those "sometimes I like pizza" types.
However, after the last time I was quit, I'll never enjoy being a nonsmoker again. The world had changed, and I couldn't stand being associated with people who were mean to smokers, and hyperbolic and downright dishonest in their claims of how smoking supposedly bothered them.
The urination example is a ridiculous one -- we have all agreed -- ALL AGREED -- what is proper is far as that is concerned and noone is put out.
Smoking is different. A significant minority chooses to enjoy this legal activity; and those who don't like it can either make it illegal or concede that smokers have a right to their fair share use of this planet.
If people like yourself don't like breathing it in while you're walking down the street, then I guess the solution is that smokers should have their fair share of convenient designated INDOOR areas -- all smoking restaurants, smoking rooms at work. lounges in the theater, etc. That way, all you have to do, is read the sign and NOT GO IN.
Thanks to people like yourself, as compared to the intelligent and interesting individual who wrote this article, you can be sure I will never, never be a non-smoker again.
I've tried to be a smoker, on and off for well over a decade. The most I ever could handle was about 5-6 ciggs per day. That honestly made me feel like crap. My lungs hurt, I felt the beginning of a cough, my sinuses and lungs started discharging odd color unmentionable stuff, and my endurance was greatly reduced. Maybe some of you benefit in the opposite way. I don't understand how this could be so, from a scientific perspective. What is it about inhaling burning tobacco residue that improves health? Do you think it jumpstarts the immune system somehow by introducing a toxin? I don't know, I'm skeptical about everything, and when the evidence is blurry, I look to personal experience.
As a mostly non-smoker (1-2 ciggs. per month max), I am able to run 8 miles at about 7 minutes per mile. At my age, 33, this is very good, and I can also say that while I was a smoker, this was not possible. I don't train particularly hard, or often. In fact, it's not unusual for me to go 3-5 weeks between runs, and still my endurance does not flag. I also eat a mostly grain diet, and have been vegetarian for 13 years, but it is whole grain, and in small amounts. I never eat sugar, or anything sweet for that matter. At 5'11", and 145 lbs, I am hardly overweight. Much of the evidence for smoking and eating grains runs counter to my personal experience, but I agree wholeheartedly about eating sugars and simple carbohydrates. If my knees can handle it, I'm going to try for a half marathon next year, but again, I'm only doing it for fun, and if it hurts too much, it's not worth it. I just go with what my body can handle, and try to treat it as good as I can.
Without hesitation, I can say that smoking only ever harmed me. About 3 or 4 times, when I persisted in smoking, despite my body's protest, I ended up getting terribly ill, as if I had caught the flu, only it was clearly from the tobacco. My sickness was centered around purging my lungs and sinuses for days, possibly weeks, and it was just disgusting. I only ever smoked American Spirits, supposedly the better choice. I can handle 1 or 2 every once and awhile, usually while out drinking with friends, but anymore, and I start to suffer exponentially.
I'm definitely against the fascist tendencies that often accompany smoking bans, but I do appreciate having some distance between smokers, when I don't want to inhale it, which is most of the time. When I feel like my body can handle it, I try to extend a similar courtesy to others. It's just common decency. I'm glad that this site questions common wisdom, but I happen to disagree with a few things. That's good, because it causes me to do more research, and ultimately, I can only trust myself. What is true for me is not always true for others.
Now, the point of the article wasnโt meant to convince you to start or stop smoking. The point of the article was about the authoritarian mind-set (as you can see a perfect example of one in GeoffreyTransom comment).
Take people walking dogs for example. Some people clean up after their dogโs doo doo and some people donโt. I donโt like stepping in it and I donโt think anyone does either. But weโre not going to go out and make laws against owning dogs. You can apply the same analogy for smokers; some smokers blow their smoke in a different direction than in the face of a passer-by and put their butt out in a designated area. And some people could care less where they blow the smoke, or where they throw the butt.
I donโt like loud sirens or honking because they give me a headache but I understand the reason to have them sometimes, so I wouldnโt want to ban it completely from society or give dirty looks to people who use them.
I donโt like people who soak themselves in perfume and when I walk by them I smell heavy perfume that causes me to sneeze, but Iโm not going to go out and want to ban people from wearing perfume. Do you follow what Iโm saying? The world is supposed to be shared, and everyone should have the common decency to share it. Smoker and non-smoker alike.
@knowledge_of_self There is a mental addiction to smoking however. It is not physical, there are no withdrawals, but the mental pleasure it provides is as good as an addiction. I crave them when I think about it, and I find them addictive on a mental level. We are not in disagreement about the authoritarian aspects. I'm generally libertarian, both economic and social. I do appreciate having smoke free establishments. I would also like to see smoking establishments, I think that consumers should be able to choose. I was very disappointed a few years ago when the last coffee shop in my town banned smoking in the outdoor area, because city regulations said there was too much overhang on the roof. Bullshit, they just ruined an awesome spot to get a smoke and coffee and enjoy the sunshine. You see, we mostly agree.
"If I walk past (or behind, or downwind of) a smoker for any length of time, my clothes wind up smelling in ways I don't like".
That probably means you've got candida.
I know plenty of people with chronic health issues who would be dead if they quit smoking. Why? I think it really helps their brain chemistry. Everyone I know who has quit smoking in the last few years is now struggling with serious health problems. I get crap from people all the time because I won't bombard my friends who still smoke with propaganda to quit.
Chronic illness is stressful enough. If it helps you to smoke, smoke em if you got em. If you happen to be allergic to tobacco, and I can be, if everything else is inflamed (from hidden gluten usually), then don't smoke. Not a big deal.
As for smelly clothes....oh for Pete's Sake...are you five years old? You may as well point your finger and say 'ewww cooties!'
But as for the, "smelling like an ashtray," bit. Um. Most of the people I've heard make that complaint smell like a chemical factory. Makes my eyes water and sometimes makes me sneeze. I think they call it perfume. Or musk in the case of men. Awful stuff when you get stuck next to one of them on the bus. That stuff always makes me cough a lot faster than tobacco smoke.
But when do the people looking down their noses at you ever think of what they are doing? Or smelling like?
Guess it's possible they've doused themselves with so many chemicals they don't notice anything but tobacco smells. I don't know. Would probably take some research to get a definitive answer.
laters
I come to this site regularly because I find things here that are no where else.
Posts like these make me wonder. Health benefits from smoking? Give me a break!
When I find that some of the founders of this site have dabbled in contact with channeled
entities, what else would I expect but disinformation?
Beware, poison is doubly dangerous when mixed with some healthy substance.
So, are you attacking the character of Sott or challenging the facts?
Clearly your coming here has yet to help you realise that you could be WRONG about some things, and not just right about those things you already knew.
If all you expect from channeled info is disinformation, then you are in a dangerous place and should consider unbookmarking SOTT for your own protection.
Hi, I have worked on vehicles in small garages and have run the engines for check ups etc, but after only a few minutes the gases expelled were enough to make you very sick , possibly even an early death ! if there is no ventilation. On the other hand i could smoke a cigarette in this environment without causing an early death , but this would be enough to annoy and irritate non smokers ,so i would oblige there concerns and go outside for a fag. But when is there going to be a ban on vehicled exhaust fumes on the streets of our cities? , because although i am a big supporter for clean air, there appears to be a world wide opinion that the pollution from tobacco is for worse than the polution from oil. How can non smokers stand idly by and breath in the smoke fumes from their very own vehicles when the risk of an early death is far more likely than some person lighting up a fag on a park bench? I do not understand the logic of the people making these statements , oil polution no problem to health, oh yeh! but smoking tobbaco i guess is causing global warming lol lol . I enjoy a cigarette and have done so for the past 40 yrs or more, and all i ask for, is that i can find a quiet secluded spot to enjoy this pleasure without non smokers seeking me out ,sitting close by ` usually downwind !! and then proceed to cough as if early lung cancer has just set in .Please give us smokers a break. Regards Dave
I won't go pro or con on this article. I will say a few things about it tho.
I DO smoke, though I don't advocate it. First, it IS an addiction. Second, inhaling a foreign gas into lungs specifically designed for oxygen cannot be beneficial to them.
That said, I will admit that considering what the US and other countries are attempting to do with regards aerosol spraying from aircraft and other sources of noxious airborne contaminants, that the mucous caused by smoking can be beneficial in warding off infectious pathogens. It's certainly not a panacea, but there is something to be said for it.
Trying to find 'pure' tobacco is becoming increasingly difficult though, particularly here in the US. I've taken to rolling my own due to the munny-grubbers continuously raising "tax" on the "sin", and in the main, I've managed to keep the addiction to minimal cost. I recently found a tobacco "ASHFORD" which was made in Germany, but now will be made in the US so it's no longer obtainable. I won't buy it any longer because the chemicals the US tobacco companies will add to it. I'll have no part of their game. I used to smoke American Spirit, but when I found it was R.J Reynolds making it, and not the Native Americans pictured on the can, I quit buying it. The papers they supplied even have the "anti-burn" additive (another chemical). I've switched to Bali Shag and so far it appeals to me. It's a product of Belgium. But that may change soon, who knows. I seriously believe the US intends to US-ize all tobacco and prohibit 'pure' tobacco from being obtained. In England they have the 'Purity Law" whichstates, cigarettes can contain "TOBACCO" and that's ALL. Not so in the US. If the ingredients were listed on the pack, they'd have to be 3 times the size and people would quit immediately.
Again I don't advocate the habit to anyone and I do know my breathing capacity has decreased, so the notion that it's beneficial is a little misguided here or at least not completely truthful. It's best to err on the side of caution in this case.
Just my opinion.
You are also ingesting gluten
I just did a search and saw none in American Spirit (someone asked the company). They say trace amounts MAY be in the paper and glue. But, that is why I roll my own.
I guess that we all subscribe to the controls of the powerful elite, and everyone appears very happy to police one another, the non smokers driving there cars in city areas appear to have a very different set of rules when it comes to poisoning there fellow citizens. Strange world eh? , and very odd that an earlier comment suggested maybe sending their dry cleaning bills because of tobacco smells on clothing. I drive my car alongside other decent folk but just accept that the world cannot be controled to such a ludicrous degree ! On a personal note, i smoke because i enjoy having control of my own choices, and don,t deliberately wish to upset other people, but i think that the 5% controllers of this planets efforts at demonising the use of tobacco will only expand to other popular pursuits, ` so non smokers beware !!!! because it is not the health concerns that concern this group, it is because they can demonstrate the power to apply this crazy law and then get your next door neighbour to police it. Who knows, maybe next on the agenda will be to pass a law forbidding obese persons the right of entry to Mc Donalds ? ....on health grounds of course, or maybe a ban on extreme sports , because of the financial strains on the healthcare system, and who knows what else ?? I think that car fumes are a far bigger concern, but hey !! we are talking energy industries, so how can the elite possibly fight themselves. Conquer and divide is there aim, and at present they are doing a pretty good job, so why are the 95% of decent folk contented to take on policing rolls and to snitch on their fellow decent humans, just accept that we humans are all wonderfully different, and this is to be celebrated among us 95%, because the minority on this planet would claim a victory if we all participated in their very strange GAME ! So please... smokers and non smokers alike,and of course all the other millions of human beings with different personal tastes, please do not dance to the 5% tune . What ever happend to common sense over political correctness, So i guess that this smoking issue which is taking hold of most of the world, is only the 1st of many 5% tunes . I guess most of us may as well just give up on humanity right now eh ? as for me .......a resounding NO, cos i prefer the 95% tune ,Kind regards Dave Bates
Yes it is in the gum and is strong enough to "gluten" someone if they are sensitive and they inhale.
I grew up in Canada during a time when smoking was prevalent and there was no anti-smoking laws or openly an anti-smoking social perception. So in reading the author stating when they had emigrated to Canada and noticed smoking sections in malls and restaurants I know they know little of how anti-smoking came about in Canada. I grew up in a family with a number of smokers on my mothers side and had friends whom when I visited had parents or relatives who smoked as well. So as the author, so was it for myself that being around smokers fairly often was common, however I do not and had many friends and relatives ( brothers, sisters and cousins ) who do not share fond memories of being around people who did smoke. In fact it was quite the opposite, it was more like always looking for that exit when they started lighting up; It simply was annoying to breath in their smoke. And whether you were a youngster or adult there was this unspoken social rule that you just shut up and put up with tolerating someone else's smoke; in a way an ongoing pro-smoking lobby held sway in those days. And when speaking of Anti-smoking Lobby? are we referring to a nebulae of conspirators to thwart peoples freedom to make choices for themselves in terms of smoking or are we talking about politicians wanting to get and keep their jobs and so respond to natural growing call from a larger segment of the population who simply like to work and go out to public places without having to put up with other peoples smoke. From my observation over many years, in Canada at least, what has happened is the later. You know in starting to look at the articles referenced about the so-called health benefits, the first one I see is opened up with a picture of Native Americans sitting in a ceremonial setting, I've read previous articles here at Sott before on tobacco and smoking but today I just stopped at that picture. There's a big difference between smoking once on occasion like these Native Americans and someone who smokes 5+ times daily on an ongoing basis. It is also a very big annoyance to go to coffee shop to get a sandwhich on your work lunch hour in a room where people are smoking continuously where any food you buy and eat has the taste of cigarettes! That is but one example of many of how it was in Canada before anti-smoking by-laws started to grab hold and spread. And the reason for all of it is that many people were just growing sick of it. Everything that politicians do is not all to keep wraps on the population and benefit those in higher places, they sometimes on occasion do things to appease the masses such is the case with anti-smoking by-laws.
Smoke once a day and on occasion sometimes more? I doubt your ever going to have problems nor really annoy anyone much. But someone who is basically smoking many times a day? You donโt need โresearchโ whether its pro or against to see that something is definitely missing from the picture when someone smokes that much. People want to smoke? Let em, so long as its not near me or where I frequent, I like my sandwhich tasting like a sandwhich thank-you.
Here's an account from the very beginning of European contact by two crew members of Columbus in Cuba:
'Two members of Columbus's crew, Luis de Torres and Rodrigo de Jerez, were the first Europeans to encounter tobacco smoking. Bartolome' de las Casas, a Spanish Dominican priest, wrote about this in his book โHistoria de las Indiasโ in 1527. The book was the personal journal of Christopher Columbus. "These two Christians met many people on the road, men and women, and the men always with a firebrand in their hands, and certain herbs to take their smokes, which are some dry herbs put in a certain leaf, dry also, after the fashion of a musket made of paper, such as boys make on the feast of the Holy Ghost. These are lit at one end, and at the other they chew or suck and take in with their breath that smoke which dulls their flesh and as it were intoxicates and so they say that they do not feel weariness. Those muskets, or whatever we call them, they call tobacos."'
So they carried "lighters" with them at all times and smoked cigars. Sounds a bit more than "ceremonial" to me. Given the addictive nature of nictotine and enough availability of tobacco, there is no reason why smoking wouldn't have been fairly frequent.
The above displays the limitations you set on yourself. If you had read the actual article with the picture you would have seen that the article doesn't even mention Native Americans, it only talks about the health benefits of smoking. If you have applied the same kind of discernment to information throughout your life, itโs no wonder you have such a skewed perception of reality.
As nor has stated below, you have missed the point entirely!
โEverything that politicians do is not all to keep wraps on the population and benefit those in higher places, they sometimes on occasion do things to appease the masses such is the case with anti-smoking by-laws.โ
Obviously you did not bother to read the article to the end. Those very same politicians who want to FORCE everyday people from smoking have allowed themselves to smoke in US Congress and the European Parliament! If smoking was soooo bad as they claim, why would they not follow their own advice?
โPeople want to smoke? Let em, so long as its not near me or where I frequent, I like my sandwhich tasting like a sandwhich thank-you.โ
Well actually, those politicians you claim are doing things for the benefit of the bigger population of none-smokers to have no smoking near them outside are wanting to ban smoking inside peopleโs homes also!
See [Link]
[Link]
[Link]
so weโre being asked to stop smoking even in the privacy of our own homes. How for peetโs sake does my smoking in the privacy of my own home effect you or your sandwich?
As for your sandwich comment, which is completely ridiculous... Why not think of it as why canโt the politicians make restaurants/bars etc for smokers and non-smokers? So the smokers can go to the smoking restaurant and the non-smokers can go to the non-smoking one? Why not accommodate both populations if they care about popularity so much according to you?
"The above displays the limitations you set on yourself. If you had read the actual article with the picture you would have seen that the article doesn't even mention Native Americans"
**
I've set no limitation on myself at all....if the article didn't even mention Native Americans that why the picture?...I know why, and that was one of my points...but this was missed by you.
There is bias here at Sott that favors smoking, that cherry picks studies to show smoking in a good light while ignoring the ones that brings the view more into balance...and the reason for this bias is because the people promoting the articles smoke themselves and is a way for them to validate their habit, instead of finding a way that is better than smoking to improve their lives or rather fill whats missing.
Whoever put the picture in with the article ( original author or not ) is simply trying to be manipulative in trying to sway the argument; "Oh, lets show this Native American smoking - they were natural and healthy people - must be good to smoke 10 times a day too, the more the better" )
**
"Obviously you did not bother to read the article to the end. Those very same politicians who want to FORCE everyday people from smoking have allowed themselves to smoke in US Congress and the European Parliament! If smoking was soooo bad as they claim, why would they not follow their own advice? "
**
Obvious you did not bother to read what I said...which was the reason the laws were put into effect...because it was wanted by many people....so they put the laws into effect and they turn around and smoke themselves...the people got what they want and they ( politicians) are doing what they want...no confict there..
**
Well actually, those politicians you claim are doing things for the benefit of the bigger population of none-smokers to have no smoking near them outside are wanting to ban smoking inside peopleโs homes also!
**
**
I didn't say the politicians are doing things for the benefit of the population...I said they were doing it to appease them... because they wanted things like no-smoking in restaurants and workplaces.
**so weโre being asked to stop smoking even in the privacy of our own homes. How for peetโs sake does my smoking in the privacy of my own home effect you or your sandwich?
**
It doesn't..and in some places they are considering not being able to smoke outside as well...but that doesn't change the reason and why of "anti-smoking" as I outlined earlier.
**
"As for your sandwich comment, which is completely ridiculous.."
**
Not as ridiculous as having to eat that sandwich with no other options available at the time.
**
Why not think of it as why canโt the politicians make restaurants/bars etc for smokers and non-smokers?
**
Why have government at all...why not we just all get along, then we wouldn't need government...or smoking for that matter
The article is about fascism - brought to light via the anti-smoking campaign.
As far as tobacco is concerned, like any other earthly plant, it does not have a singular universal effect for all (positive or negative).
**
"I think the saying that Native American smoking was "ceremonial" is misleading. Since we nowadays only rarely have ceremonies it makes us think that they only smoked occasionally. Societies like the Native American tribes had frequent "ceremonies" and I believe the ethnographic literature said they smoked several times a day.
**
I don't think its misleading at all, since the way the picture was painted is very suggestive of a ceremony occurring; and from what I have read of historical accounts, and personal accounts ( Native Americans telling me their stories; what was passed on down to them ), is that they only smoked on occasion. I was also referencing smoking ceremonially on occasion compared to smoking 10 -15 times a day. Do you really think anyone ever smoke "ceremonially" 10-15 times a day? in the way as depicted in the picture? If so they probably had some other tribe doing all their hunting and gathering for them since they would never have time themselves, cause they are having 10 ceremonies a day.
**
So they carried "lighters" with them at all times and smoked cigars. Sounds a bit more than "ceremonial" to me. Given the addictive nature of nictotine and enough availability of tobacco, there is no reason why smoking wouldn't have been fairly frequent.
**
So if this account is true then Cuban natives smoked much right?...this doesn't mean the rest of the native population in the millions did as so as well...
..and the pictured natives sure don't look like Cubans and likely sure as didn't have access to as much tobacco as the Cubans. And that pipe they are sharing ( sharing because they don't each have their own personal one).
**
...there is no reason why smoking wouldn't have been fairly frequent.
**
..perhaps not for this tribe since by their own accounts they didn't know how to live if they had to resort to carrying lighters with them at all times and smoked cigars so that they do not feel weariness says much that they were lacking...
Glad you like the username I chose to log into this sight with neema.
**
"Wow, you just want to argue till the cows come home eh? Or in your case, till the fascist pigs come home."
**
Guess you want to as well since it takes 2 to tango.
**
"People like you just donโt get it,...."
**
Oh...I get it alright neema, much more than you think.
**
"You really think politicians give a ratโs ass about voters?"
**
Do you really think that my observation over the years in the regards to how anti-smoking laws came to be in Canada means I think politicians care about ALL things that matter to voters?
**
and looks like you are with the program very nicely, just ripe for the pickins.
**
nope...I've separated myself from the system long ago, I'm not pick-able.
**
"Just remember this when you are eating your little sandwich, and โtheyโ come for you because gluten has been banned, as you say since โthe majorityโ has become sick of it, and now itโs time for the re-education camp."
**
And eating gluten will not affect the person sitting beside me the same as if I happen to be smoking a few. If there are laws made to ban Gluten it won't because people are sick of it; It will be for other reasons and nothing to do with my point.
**
"Enjoy it for now, for soon enough you will ponder this, โWell when they came for the smokers I didnโt say anything, and now that they are coming for me there is no one leftโ.
**
Actually like I said, I've purged the system from my life, so there won't be no time when I have to ponder what you suggest. I came to that point long ago, as you are coming too now.
โEverything that politicians do is not all to keep wraps on the population and benefit those in higher places, they sometimes on occasion do things to appease the masses such is the case with anti-smoking by-laws"
Tonybaloney, why don't you just get to the point and say "I am a low level fascist bore".
is a bit like stating "uranium is healthier than plutonium". . not to mention polonium which is in cigarettes
[Link]
[Link]
The same studies that were manipulated to make smoking look worse (Rats had to smoke many times for their weight more than a normal can to get cancer), are the same ones that are trying to cover up hazards with cellphones, drugs, etc. Not to mention how the medical establishment likes to choose certain test groups in order to "enhance" their expected results.
You are engaging in legalistic nit-picking.
Pause to wonder, what is it that really prompts this fear and loathing of the fags?
I know it was just a side-comment in this article and I think this is a very good article of smoking even though one should do one's own research, to get to known with what's really good for your health before making decisions about smoking. It's what Edgar Cayce said too and it sounds logical to me. Anyways, the comment about alcohol being harmless... I don't know if it is for people who drink very moderate, small amounts, but if you go to here Finland, Russia or Ireland you should see it's not all good if you take too much. Hangover, liver damage, alcohol overuse deaths, and some people becoming more violent from using it. I think that overreacting to alcoholism is bad, that overreacting on both sides caused my parents' divorce too, one lies about it and other thinks it's a world's end. Our country has a long history of alcohol-related deaths and violence cases and I think it may be a suitable drug for some and shouldn't be banned, but it isn't harmless.
If you read SOTT, the forum (especially the Diet and Health board), and related sites, you'll see that the general stance is that alcohol is quite harmful, even in small quantities. Yes, people should have the right to drink obviously, as you say, but the harm caused by it should not be overlooked and should in fact be looked into thoroughly, including our own experiments and experiences. While a totally healthy person without a huge buildup of toxins (mostly environmental and dietary) would not be harmed by the occasional drink, these days, such a person is virtually non-existent.
Those who have looked at the REAL research -- the studies without special interest funding and other hidden agendas -- and experimenting and comparing experiences on the forum have come to make many dietary changes over the last couple of years, and alcohol is one of the things that is completely avoided; it became so after more data and personal experiences accumulated, like everything else. I was never much of a drinker but liked different kinds of good alcohol occasionally -- good beer, wine, cognac, and single malt scotch, etc. -- but I've stopped for around five years, even before the latest dietary experimentation and overall recommendations for those who want to participate in finding their own path to optimal diet and health. After totally avoiding alcohol, as well as other dietary changes and seeing the health improvements, I've had little bits of it on a few occasions and I really see that I don't want to drink at all. Now I don't touch the stuff at all for a couple of years. That's just me.
Alcohol destroys many lives and families around the world and has done so for quite a while, but, unsurprisingly, their isn't the same type of authoritarian, fascistic anti-alcohol propaganda campaign like tobacco. So much for the concern for people's health and well being as the pretext. Tobacco smoking which is (for the brain) the most efficient and effective way to infuse nicotine, improves learning, memory, cognition in a major way, so the threat to the Powers That Be is a real one.
There have been many periods in history when an extreme totalitarian/authoritarian/fascist regime has had a very intensive anti-smoking campaign: Nazi Germany, but for one example. Notice also that currently there's no attempt to make purchasing tobacco products illegal (thankfully!) pretty much anywhere in the world. The ever increasing prices of tobacco products (especially pre-rolled cigarettes) in the last decade has the vast majority of that price going to governments in the form of taxes on the products. They're just making it impossible to smoke it anywhere -- indoors, in your own home, car, etc. or outdoors more and more -- and getting a good portion of the non-smoking population to act like the enforcers of these authoritarian leaders' and followers' pathological policies. It's just a part of the whole twisted world we live in -- another Sign of the Times.
This article started out good, about rights being stripped away. This isn't about smoking at all. This is about people making their own choices. Smoking is just a drop in the bucket. In America, the rights of an unborn child were ripped from them just because they couldn't scream back at a selfish woman that they would one day discover the cure for cancer. She, after all, "had attained the right to choose", as though she never had that right before. How about the right to choose whether you want to wear seat belts? That should be my right! My whole generation did not wear seat belts....were WE wiped from the face of the earth through auto accidents? Were our children? NO! our children were to live, grow up and vote to kill the unborn!
What about being the owner or your own restaurant...pay your own bills, your own taxes, and have the big brother come and tell you that you cannot allow smokers into your establishment as it may "offend" someone else. I say, if they do not like it, by golly, they have a CHOICE. They can go to another restaurant!...Alas, but no. big brother CHOOSES to decide FOR us what we will or will not do with what we own.
So you see, it is not about tobacco. It is about greed and power. There are those who are very greedy for power and they suck it in,...they breathe it and urinate it! They NEED to stomp on someone else or they do not feel the power! That is what this is about. Then they become like the dictators of the world...the ones whom the people are finally taking up arms and fighting against, and who are willing to die for their beliefs...THEY have the right to CHOOSE FOR THEMSELVES, and from conception to death, human beings should be given the credit for their own brains, be it right or wrong in the sight of another, everyone should have the right to make their decisions in this life, to form the government of their choosing to lead them and if they come to a point of not "leading" their people, then the people have the right to ask them to leave and they should leave, without the pain of war! But, of course, that is called "utopia".
Choices. The world's choices are ripped from the people. You are either the worker bees, or the queen. We know what we are, folks. We either shut up and take it, or replace the queen, or become the queen. Choices.
of articles like this that one sees so many comments of such diverse and laborious content that the world is in such a state....nothing was concluded other than the dubious "right" to choose!!!!
We have all chosen well and are paying the price for it....and the looneys can dish out their loonisms from a comfy chair and screen anonymously.....whilst bigger nerds do actual damage to everything they touch.....
Smoking as we know it that comes in packs of 20 at an absurd price is bad for your health but great for the profit and the government too....real tobacco is in such small quantities that real smoking should be described as a luxury or even a rarity...
Ersatz is life in general and whether X% of the peple tested in a given situation are relative to the herd of humanity itself is of no particular consequence unless one is of the scientific bracket working on a meal ticket...a glass half full is also half empty - statistics are plastic.
What is this life if full of care...that we have no time to stand and stare....you can add your end according to your point of view - if it is yours!
the following is offered as information only; cigarette smoke contains carbon monoxide, benzene, dioxin and gluten. If you balance your position you would have more credibility
Smoking, that is. Efforts to control this antisocial, silly addiction can get pretty obnoxious too, but the habit itself wins, hands down. I'm all for legalizing drugs (all of them), but keep your cacinogenic air pollution to yourself. I don't want to share in your health problems, and a "non smoking" area of a room is like the "non-pissing" end of a swimming pool. Your garbage spreads and affects everyone around you.
Smoking = nicotine addiction, which is about as useful as heroin addiction, meth addiction or alcohol addiction. Kudos to Geoffrey Transom for pointing out how disgusting and unfashionable the habit has become. Obviously, from the outraged online howls from a few other posters, truth hurts.
There is nothing that makes me laugh harder than the sight of some pathetic idiot standing outside in the cold sucking away on a little white tube full of nicotine, and paying a tobacco company $10-$15 per day for the privilege of doing so. Just imagine what anyone could do with at least $300 extra every month! But smokers would rather give it to Phillip Morris...oh well, I guess they don't have a choice, once they're hooked. According to animal studies, nicotine is more addictive that heroin.
It's quite ironic, given Madison Avenue's successful attempt to link smoking to images of success and beauty, that smoking correlates inversely with financial success. The dumbest, poorest people smoke. Prisoners and mental patients almost all smoke. People with college degrees and professions rarely do. Now that the first world is in the process of kicking the habit, tobacco companies are targeting the third world, where there are still plenty of illiterate suckers who will pay big bucks to look ugly and die young.
As for mental patients smoking, consider that tobacco may be good for mental health, and may be a lot better than the psychiatric drugs given them by the industry. If it ameliorates their symptoms (and we're all mentally unhealthy to some extent) why is it a bad indicator that they smoke?
If I balance my position I would have more credibility.
Thanks but no thanks.
The road to hell was paved, walled, tiled, plumbed, fixtured and fitted by vacant idiots who's principle interest was "adjusting their positions to gain more credibility".
I will be sharing this article with my little circle of friends and family. It is well written and has lots of information and references to help *some* people to stop and think twice about the reason's behind all the anti-smoking propaganda in the world. Of course, there is always going to be people who just don't get it or choose to not want to get it.
For all you hopefully organic smokers out there, it would be very considerate of you to buy one of those cheap little portable ash trays for your cigarette butts rather then tossing them on the street or sidewalk - I have one and it's great.
Also, try to smoke in an area away from people or not in a crowded downtown street - basically don't give the anti-smokers more reason to hate us while practicing consideration to others who don't like smokers or smoking due to their own reasons. One possible reason being that perhaps their body is of a genetic makeup that does not benefit from, or is harmed by, second hand smoke - although I think it is silly for them to start coughing from five meters away when continually being exposed to the exhaust of automobiles is a LOT more harmful for everyone then the chemicals of any commercial second hand smoke could ever be, to say the least!
In the 1970s I owned a restaurant and lounge and a couple of taverns. In them we installed "SmokeEaters." These were electronic filtering machines that would take smoke out of the air and did that pretty well. Every week we had to take the filters out and soak them in solvent to get them clean again. You wouldn't believe the amount of crud that could be taken out of the air. Each and every morning when you entered the lounge or tavern, it was the smell that hit you. The stink was everywhere, in the carpet, the ceiling tile, the napkins, the wood on the walls. It was not a pleasant smell to say the least.
I smoked for 25 years and in the last years I drank quite a bit and smoked three or four packs a day. I also backpacked, skied, played racketball, full-court basketball, and jogged. I had good wind, though sometimes I whistled when I breathed. I quit when I was forty-one, because I was feeling like hell of a morning from all that smoking and drinking. My lungs soon cleared up and I had better wind by far and felt a lot better overall. My gums were very unhealthy looking my dentist told me while I was a smoker. Now I have healthy numbers in that regard and no receding.
During the time I smoked, I began to notice how every single activity was associated with a smoke at the end of it. I constantly thought about it and always made sure that I had enough cigs to get me through whatever I was looking to do. I noticed how obsessive I was in that regard, always checking, always insuring against the dire fate of not having a cig when I wanted one. I woke up in the morning and first thing, light up. Have a cup of coffee, light up. Eat breakfast, light up. Go for a run, light up. Read the paper, light up, Sit on a mountaintop, light up. Have a drink, light up. Have sex, light up. How could I ever give up smoking? Those activities would seem hollow without a cig to cap them.
I noticed these things and more. I noticed how my fingers smelled, how the ashtrays looked with their ashes and smashed butts. I noticed how the cat moved away when I smoked. I'd walk into my home and smell cigarette smoke. It was on my clothes and in my hair. I looked at the street while walking down it. Cigarette butts galore. I saw them on beaches, boardwalks, and on the odd floor of some building or other. I saw lit cigs thrown out windows by the hundreds even on forest highways. All this noticing helped me when it came time to quit smoking.
The cost of smoking? Add it up for yourself and think about how you might have put that money in Intel or Cisco or Apple over 25 years. It's hard to argue that smoking is not insane in that regard.
As for arguing for the right to smoke using libertarian principles, you might want to clear your head of the cobwebs before doing so. Do as you say you will do and don't harm anyone are about all you need to know about libertarianism. The author and most of the people on this site totally ignore the second tenet while asserting that they are the victims. What utter rot. Smoke does not stay with the smoker but drifts in the air to anyone nearby. But whether that is offensive to someone nearby fails to impress the smokers hereabouts. They all cry for good treatment but don't care a wit for their trespasses. That is not a proper libertarian stance.
It used to be that you could go into a restaurant for a nice meal and you could be seated in the non-smoking section, which often as not was the least desirable seating. View seats were for smokers. Okay, fine. Except that the non-smoking section was filled with smoke. What a surprise! I nearly stopped going out to eat myself. I really can't imagine anyone wanting to smell cigarette smoke while eating a restaurant meal. It defies reason. But that doesn't stop the smokers on this site from making a fuss about their rights. I fear for my country when so-called libertarians seem to have lost any ability to think critically. But I fear for my country anyway as the rest of the minds out there are of about the same quality. Reasonable men are few.
May all you smokers live next to a couple of Dobermans that bark all day. May you live in close proximity to teenagers who play rap music as loud as they please. May you live on a street where people burn their trash. May you live next door to a rooster, a chainsaw hobbyist, an obsessive electric yard tool user, a fighting couple, an early riser who honks when he leaves and honks when he comes home. May you come to your senses someday and allow that no one cares whether you smoke or what your health is or how much it costs or how much pleasure you get from smoking. Just don't blow your smoke on someone who doesn't want smoke blown on him. But I suppose that is not reasonable to expect from you all. Good luck.
.
Eh, have you been reading the news? More and more areas are being prohibited for smokers. And I can tell you, that it's not for anyone's safety. Do some research yourself, and you'll see.
I've never blown smoke on someone who doesn't want smoke on them (why would I?), but if I'm outside and smoking, people may simply walk away if they don't like that. And they have that right.
But if I had to choose between being in a crowd of organic tobacco smoking people and being in a crowded place in the city breathing in all the toxic fumes emitted by all the cars that pass by.... I think I'd rather choose the former, thank you very much.
Also take into account the difference between commercial cigarettes, which are very harmful indeed, to the real organic deal, which actually is very healthy to those who like smoking. Makes a whole lot of a difference. You were addicted to commercial cigarettes (not surprising when you look at the amount of addictive crap they put in it) and you suffered the consequences. I for one smoke organic tobacco, and roll my own (the paper used in cigarettes can be toxic as well). Never had a problem with my gums, lungs (had a check at some point, all looked fine), and my mind isn't occupied with smoking at all. It's just a nice thing to do, to relax.
advocates the "health" benefits of cigarette smoking whilst warning people about the negative impact of dietary gluten. think people
"This website advocates the "health" benefits of cigarette smoking whilst warning people about the negative impact of dietary gluten. think people"
So why do you keep coming back here day upon day upon day upon day, then? Addicted?
Funny, I must encounter about ten times more fascist bores in a week of reading SOTT comments than I do in a year of my work/rest/play life. Most of these idiots probably think they're "awake", and everyone else "sheeple" or whatever. Quelle horreur.
Here, no one is telling anybody to simply believe everything they read and see, but to go check the facts and data yourself. But who wants to go through that effort, right? It's a pity.
Enjoyed the article and refreshing perspective! Wrote this screenplay on the subject a while back...
[Link]
...a political satire/comedy called, "Smoke Out!"
Looking for a film producer or production company who might be interested.
No way did tyrant Lincoln ever say those words. This is either a quote taken from someone else or the DC Federalists fabricated it as they did so many other of his supposed quotes and speeches we were made to learn in the govt schools ! The Lincoln you were taught about in the govt schools is not the REAL Lincoln - the govt one is totally fabricated ! Lincoln is THEIR "hero" since he established the foundation for their OWG in 1861 when he did a complete coup on the Founders Constitutional Republic and replaced it with this Marxist system we have all been born to and made to call "freedom". NO one has ever gotten TRUE history in the Federal schools ! Lincoln's entire life was taking freedom AWAY FROM the people ! He was a Rothschild. He was a tyrant and dictator.
WE have today what we do because Lincoln put it into place !
He began all the taxes we have, created the IRS, The Secret Service, the Police (not to be confused with the Sheriff that belongs to the People). Many UN-Constitutional "Federal" agencies.
Before Lincoln was placed in office with a fixed election, it was the ARMED PEOPLE who were the law enforcement and there was NO crime ! Since the Lincoln Police have been in charge crime has thrived !
Try reading a true history book for a change - there are many out there.
"Red Republicans and Lincoln Marxists" by Walter Kennedy and Al Benson
"Lincoln's Marxists" by the same authors
"Abraham Lincoln" A Southern View by Lochlainn Seabrook
"War Crimes Against Southern Civilians" compiled by Walter Brian Cisco by written by those who lived it from their journals.
"Everything You Were Taught About the Civil War Is Wrong" by Locklainn Seabrook
There are many more.
Don't think you will get any truths from the govt 'historians' you see on TV
They have to be govt approved before they go on the govt's air waves !! They have to keep pushing the DC govt lies.
"Here, no one is telling anybody to simply believe everything they read and see, but to go check the facts and data yourself. But who wants to go through that effort, right? It's a pity"
Well, yeah. I think a lot of people don't want to undo the propaganda matrix though, 'cause it suits their purposes. I've got thirty years of "smoking research" behind me, and I get tired of telling people: Look. I don't have a cough, I've never had a cough, haven't had a cold nor 'flu nor any transmittable physical malady since the Eighties. Another thing: additives. I smoke the additive free kind, but I haven't always done and I was never ill then either.
These desperate reactions against smoking have nothing to do with health, stinking clothes or anything else of that sort. That's just a cover, a way to attack smokers. What these anti-smoking bores who leap out of the woodwork every time there's an article about smoking on here don't want you to know is: THEY ACTUALLY FEAR SMOKERS.
Almost all the great writers, artists, musicians, thinkers of the 20th Century were smokers, and without cigarettes it's doubtful their fruits would have manifested, because smoking is just such a great thinking tool. Look at the art, music etc we've had since smoking became "unfashionable" - it's all crap.
Fear of smokers = fear of thinkers.
"So why do you keep coming back here day upon day upon day upon day, then? Addicted?"
**
Are you?...you keep coming back as well
**
"I've got thirty years of "smoking research" behind me"
**
Well I have 48 years of smoking research behind myself, and my question to you, is how many of those studies read did you actually study the study themselves instead of just taking the face value of the results written? Context is everything.
**
I don't have a cough, I've never had a cough, haven't had a cold nor 'flu nor any transmittable physical malady since the Eighties.
**
Just the absence of disease ( contemporary definition ) does not mean good health; If you raise the bar of what good health is, you won't be able to make it with smoking habitually on a daily basis; because smoking will interfere with that process of getting to a place of feeling and functioning much better.
**
Almost all the great writers, artists, musicians, thinkers of the 20th Century were smokers, and without cigarettes it's doubtful their fruits would have manifested, because smoking is just such a great thinking tool. Look at the art, music etc we've had since smoking became "unfashionable" - it's all crap.
**
So you really think out of those contributors it was smoking that was a major factor?...I don't think so, what about all the many contributors of the past who were not smokers, and all the modern ones who are? And since smoking became unfashionable?...you said the magic word "unfashionable" all those great thinkers and artists were smoking because it was a fashion for the most part. If you really think smoking is a great thinking tool then you are in a state of ignorance like all other smokers now and in the past who share that same notion. Naturally Ignorant that is, not really a fault - you just don't know not having come across the means to know otherwise. Whatever benefit you claim from smoking is but fractionally marginal from the same benefit you could acquire otherwise.
**
...THEY ACTUALLY FEAR SMOKERS...
...Fear of smokers = fear of thinkers....
**
The only fear is yours that you wouldn't know how to think unless you had your drags of smoke, you fear you wouldn't know what else to do to replace that crutch of smoking, its all you have to make you feel you can just keep your head above water - that's the fear, and it's yours.
are we talking about the right plant
Concerns are about control, and nothing to do with health! If the smoking bans where about health , then there are so many other food, drinks and toxic fumes that should be of a greater concern eh! if we are talking the same logic then they should also ban petroleum products but we all know this will never happen right? I am a smoker and feel comfortable enjoying the product, and like most other smokers , i am prepared to be tolerant of peoples dislikes and endure sub zero temperatures in order not to upset people who object to it. We smokers have been demonised and are on the floor, and the decent ones among us will gladly try and smoke in sensible areas, but some folks just seem consumed by the idea of still putting the boot in while we are down. I am aware that this mass demonisation of certain groups will extend into other groups before too long , Unfortunately , we all belong to some group or another .. right ? Kind regards Dave Bates