12
posted ago by werewolfinasuit ago by werewolfinasuit +13 / -1

I've come across the mention of cigarettes actually being healthy for you a few times now. Can anyone further elaborate on this? I would guess that the big name brands are actually shit for you and the natural tobacco is better, but it seems like the anti-smoking campaign is targeted at tobacco products as a whole so info is hard to find in support of the "pro-tobacco" argument (if it holds any water to begin with).

Comments (11)
sorted by:
14
deleted 14 points ago +14 / -0
7
Blackbeans 7 points ago +7 / -0

It's been used ceremoniously by many cultures. Probably in excess is bad. Also comparing cigarettes to tobacco would be like studying people who drink three 20 oz soy lattes a day with sugar and flavorings and concluding that coffee is bad.

6
deleted 6 points ago +6 / -0
3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
5
WindyJibbz 5 points ago +6 / -1

I am in my thirties, still have a decently athletic body, no man tits or beer gut. Smoked since i was 18. My last cold/flu was in 2014. I cant obviously run like I could at 18, the darts make you winded but I think they obviously help against corona viruses in my experience.

2
x-irradiance 2 points ago +2 / -0

My suspicion is that smoking is far less bad for you than they make it out to seem.

It should be noted that "eliminating cigarette smoking" is (IIRC) one of the Agenda30 goals. Interesting that it doesn't mention any other drugs of addiction.

Anecdotally, I had given up smoking for a couple of years, then resumed in about 2010. I have not had a single respiratory viral infection (that I noticed) since then.

It had been a running joke of mine that it was smoking that protected me from diseases. I thought it might be the placebo effect, and I started writing "Cures all diseases" on each cigarette prior to smoking it. This was just to rile people up in a way that I find gratifying, but once I heard that smoking reduces your chances of getting covid, plus the fact that here in Australia, they charge you $30 for a 20-pack of marlboros, I figured that it can't be for reasons of health that the govt is so heavy-handed here regarding tobacco. You can't even show pictures of the branding on websites that sell tobacco products.

Another data point is that i decided that I should quit or cut down smoking in order to get better physical gains. I enrolled in hot-yoga with the assumption that there's no way my smoke-addled body could handle that, and I'd naturally quit out of utility... but, I in fact found no impact whatsoever due to smoking on my progress with yoga. As such, I still haven't quit.

At the moment, I'm doing this thing where as 'payment' for having a cigarette, I do 10 pull-ups on my bar at home. Even doing this directly after finishing the cigarette, it is just as easy as without. The added benefit is that I can now do 16 in a row.

More datapoints: I did a research dive a while back and found out that scientists have never been able to induce lung cancer in an animal by making it breathe cigarette smoke. So, there is in fact NO DIRECT EVIDENCE that cigarette smoke causes cancer. Plenty of correlations, but no causation.

I love staying fit and strong, and people usually take me to be 10+ years younger than I am (which is around 45).

My somewhat educated opinion is that if indeed smoking causes cancer, it is due to chain-smoking in such a way that one's blood oxygen levels are chronically attenuated. But, so long as you leave an hour or more between cigarettes, you'll be fine.

In any case, it all remains a mystery.

2
Agent777 2 points ago +2 / -0

Nicotine is in a lot of plants, including many foods like broccoli

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
Agent777 1 point ago +1 / -0

There haven't been any studies that the m aware of but you'd have to be a total idiot to not see that organic, all natural tobacco is going to be far less toxic than tobacco with additives.

Some prettyy nasty chemicals are added, and sugar which when burnt puts off carcegenic smoke. Pesticides etc. Covered in nasty shit as part of the curing process and then packaged in paper with flamable additives and then you draw the GH it smoke through a cellulose acetate filter probably picking up fumes and vapors from that plast ic.

Vs

An organic tobacco with zero additives no pesticides smoked through paper without flamable additional bed and drawn through an organic cotton filter, or even non filter.

Obviously the organic choice is going to be way less harmful.

I do think there are beneficial things in the tobacco chemicals but also very harmful things and if your an addicted smoker your doing more harm than good.

But if you don't smoke regularly you could probably use it where the ha is very very little.

Much of the harm done requires repetitive usage orlver a very long time.

But of using only occasionally you run the risk of wanting to do it more and.more and becoming addicted.