Tobacco = Evil Herbs!?

JIDF rule #1:

Create threads —ANY threads— so long as they don't expose "The Jewish Question" or "The Jewish Conspiracy".

Thread reported, you kike!

You're right. Tobacco is not more harmful than coffee, if you use it properly. 20 cups of coffee a day can cause heart disease and cancer too.

Pipes, cigars do not inhale. Nicotine is absorbed through the mucosa of the mouth and stomach. There is also the snus.

Degenerate and doesn't even give a decent high

That and asbestos. The government requured asbestos to be used in everything. Even gas mask filters. Thats the real source of lung cancer right there.

yeah it was less common, only for the wealthy, and with less frequency (smoke a bit of pipe in the afternoon)

when cigarette production was ramped up it was pretty much what HFCS did to sugar

>smoking tobacco causes several types of Cancer and other health problems. But is this true?

No, to my knowledge none of that is true. There has never been a successful correlation between disease and tobacco smoking. Every study linking the two was very poorly done and the results were gobbled up by governments that wanted to tax tobacco and by people who didn't like being around it. I am guessing that pharmaceutical groups also saw an opportunity to take advantage of this as well. People just take the absolute worst cases of people who happen to smoke getting sick and saying it's the norm when they would've likely been sick anyway regardless of tobacco use. Or they may have had a bad genetic reaction to tobacco that is rarer than people think.

>The Nuclear Bomb was invented and tested

I would say this is possibly a very solid motive as to why they tried to blame things on smoking to begin with. Anther motive could be to shift blame from viruses and STDsthat were actually causing the illnesses.

if you use both properly, coffee is less detrimental to health

It's just a plant. It can't be good or evil.

Tobacco is radioactively polluted. That is because of cheap fertilizer countaining polloniun 210. smoking a pack of cigarrettes exposes you lung to as much radiation as an x ray chest scan

Kek shall agree

I'm sure tobacco companies add other additives to cigarettes, surely natural tobacco should be better.

I dip a lot. Smoking fucks with my lungs but i don't see any issue with dip really

Are you sure?

syo.dalrun.com/Forum/Tobacco/Topics/493.html

>The alleged danger of polonium in tobacco smoke is a hoax. The often repeated tale of "300 X-rays per year" is a made up figure based on a "model" in which all of tobacco smoke you inhale in a year is concentrated on a microscopic area, few cells in size. In reality tobacco, which like all plants takes in radioactive atoms via water, air and fertilizers contains no more radioactive atoms per unit of weight than anything else you ingest. The only difference is that while your lungs take in less than a gram of tobacco smoke matter per pack, the food and beverages bring in thousands time more, hence thousands times more radioactive atoms. For example, from a glass of plain water, which is the least dangerous among the foods and beverages, you will ingest as many radioactive atoms as you will from 3-10 packs of cigarettes.

>cheap fertilizer countaining polloniun 210
This can invent about any plant.

Tobacco was smoked like cigars back in the day. Until James Buchanan Duke invented the modern cigarette.

Shit article. Sure smoking does not cause cancer, how could it? Cancer is uncontrollable cell-division mostly radioactive that messes with the Off and On switch on the cells.
How can smoke cause that? What chemicals are there in that smoke?

i brought 3 today

Yes, smokino causes cancer. Smoke is composed of combustEd nitrosamines, which are either toxic or carcinogenic. The toxins are filtered out pretty efficiently by your mucous system, so you won't end up with fucked up lungs unless you are chain smoking for 2 or more decades. The real problem is the car cogent, silently building up mutations in your cells.

Some people have genotypes that make them resistant to aldehyde induce genetic lesions, other simply don't smoke that enough (we have only been able to get a positive ci for cancer studies with smokers that inhale more than a pack a day)

As for in older time, people didn't smoke as much. Native Americans celebrated the smoke pipe once a month at the most, some tribes they just got really fucked up in a hotbox annually. The chain smoking cig brand was started in the early 20th century

Anything that's burned has high concentrations of highly oxidated organic chemicals and polyaromatic DNA intercalating agents. Smoking tobacco that you grew yourself will give you emphysema and dramatically increase your odds of lung cancer.

You should also avoid eating burnt foods for the same reasons, but this less important due to the fact that the gastrointestinal tract has more robust protective features than the respiratory tract

>calls it a shit article
>agrees that smoking doesn't cause cancer

What?

Even trace amounts of polonium 210 will kill you dead. The radiation like damage of smoking comes from the introduction of free radicals, produced by the burning tobacco itself.

"acrylamide"

theconversation.com/does-burnt-food-give-you-cancer-63621

Sorry I was unclear. It's a HIT article.

The real question is, why does the governement & certain groups seem to care so much? They spend millions of dollars on advertising & other things to try to make people not start smoking or stop smoking. But why? Why do they care so much, they do not seem to care much about alcohol or the people addicted to it.

>2016
>smoking or dipping instead of using snus

What is larynx cancer ?

But you wouldn't rule out that adding chemicals or pretroleum based products will release higher concentrations of free radicals?

They could easily be covering up the actual reason, man.

Nicotine has some nootropic effects and slightly improve brain functions.

>smokino causes cancer.
food, air, sun too

Snus is illegal to sell in EU

its useless, the bigger promotion of all times are movies and series

if you see in you movies or series people smoking or take some kind of drink, you will want to do it

This is exactly what I've wondered about. Does smoking or nicotine interfere with some kind of behavior-controlling system they have in place, or chemicals they feed us. Maybe it's just the idea of being able to change the behavior of an entire nation of 300 million that gets them hard, to prove that we're just "biological androids".

Maybe they discovered people who smoke are less likely to require prozac to deal with anxiety, and they want people on prozac for some reason.

You have to have high concentrated amounts of it if you're to get cancer though. Eating all that BBQ will give you heart problems before you get cancer.

Shit I never got hooked on cigarettes. I remember I felt some good effect with the first few packs (at that time one pack would last me 2 weeks). And the effect disappeared forever. No ammount of smoking would make it come back, so I abandoned the ship. I never was actually pleased with cigarettes in the first place, the biggest issue for me was stinky smoke, stinky fingers, stinky clothes and house, stinky fucking everything and getting nothing in return. Weed at least gives you desired effect almost every time.

or maybe that is just propaganda to show they care about people's health but in reality they know people ignore those ads and smoke

not only for smokers. There is no reason to say that this type of cancer is caused solely by tobacco. Even among tobacco users.

Anything that kills cells increases odds of cancer, because it must be repaired by mitotic division, which inherently introduces mutations. In tobacco smoke, this includes volatile organics, free radicals, DNA interculating agents, and initiation of inflammatory response.

Oh certainly not, cigarettes are far worse than raw tobacco. Not because of increased free radical intensity (no reason to assume that's the case), but the additives are themselves toxic.

Well, the non-conspiracy answer is the alcohol companies pretty much all complied with the initial government regulations and the cigarette companies did not, so uncle sam slapped them with way more regulations. That's why alcohol companies can advertise on television with certain restrictions (no actually drinking liquid, certain audiences, etc.) while cigarettes say they will kill you on the packaging.

The government doesn't spend money on anti-tobacco campaigns, the tobacco companies do.

Even in the US healthcare is heavily subsidized, especially for the elderly.

Getting people to stop doing dumb shit that accrues costly and preventable medical expenses would save tax payers billions

>Getting people to stop doing dumb shit that accrues costly and preventable medical expenses would save tax payers billions
If they government actually gave a shit about engaging in harm reduction to save money on healthcare they wouldn't be doing things like trying to legislate electronic cigarettes out of existence and rescheduling kratom.

Where do you buy natural tobacco without all of the shit they use in cigarettes these days?

Any Snus. Snus is steamed tobacco with salt and flavorings.

American Spirits have no additives.

>The whole government is one monolithic entity and not thousands of agencies at the federal, state, and local levels with different priorities and levels of retardation

Are you trying to imply that the DEA and FDA are isolated agencies cut off from any executive control with no connections to health policy and the healthcare industry? I hope you're not saying that because it would be incredibly stupid of you.

Free healthcare isn't free, if theres a chance a lot of people will get sick from something the government will ban it.

>Europeans smoked since 1492. But lung Cancer was not known as effect from smoking
your average life expectancy at that period of time was like 40-50 years max. by that age your immune system would have weakened from shitty food and other factors, so you'd die from the constant diseases running through the countries
hard to detect cancer that usually develops to a killing decree after decades of daily smoking.

I smoke tobacco in cigars. Swedes make good snus, but it was banned in Europe. And I understand why. It gives a great effect of nicotine, first relax, then the concentration and stimulation. Tobacco in cigarettes specially spoil the European standards. see

>Europeans smoked since 1492. But lung Cancer was not known as effect from smoking. It all started in the 50s.

Cancer hadn't even been defined in the 1400s you fucking idiot. People died at age 30 from "a cough" and that was that.

mappinghistory.uoregon.edu/english/US/US39-01.html

average life expectancy in 1492 would have been under 40.

we've doubled life expectancy so cancer has longer to develop. if you kill yourself before 40 i bet you could smoke your whole life.

You don't get cancer from Tobacco itself but also mostly from the paper.

>smoking causes cancer
>from a bong
Nigga

maybe they are motivated by kindness and feel it is a public good and a public service?
You wouldn't understand, being a self abosed basement frogposter.

Even some cigarette filters used asbestos.

>If you kill yourself early enough, the tobacco can't win!

Radioactive fallout has probably got into the soil that tobacco is grown in and now gets taken into the plant and inhaled.

Yeah most definitely this. The kind and benevolent government wants to protect your health.

Doesn't smoking release electron rich molecules? Doesn't that cause the damage to the DNA (cancer).