People believe studies proving cigarettes are unhealthy are false propaganda?

I will say, I could see how a couple of cigarettes a day made from home grown tobacco might have a calming benefit that outweighs the health risks.

If you want to support corporations that conspired to hide the ill effects of their cigarettes for years, that is your right.

But to say studies which show smoking industrial massed produced cigarettes from corporations at rates consistent with normal smokers are harmful to health are false propaganda.... WTF

If smoking tobacco as normally practiced in our culture was healthy, why would there be a conspiracy to produce false medical studies to prove otherwise?

I have watched grandparents and parents have health issues from smoking, and die from smoking. While seeing other people’s kin that did not smoke live longer in total years, and had a better quality of life.

To say the studies that prove the ill effects of smoking are pure false propaganda, while ignoring the true conspiracy of corporations and governments profiting from a substance purposely addictive is bewildering?

I rate people that claim smoking cigarettes produced by corporations as safe at the same level of craziness as flat earthers.

Who knows.
My great great Grandma smoked and lived to be 103.

a reply to: neutronflux

That's a hard one,and I believe you. But my wife's grandfather smoked for 70yrs,died at 91,and from what I know it wasn't smoking related.....I think it all comes down to genetic predisposition,well in some cases anyways.

Says “Smoking Kills” on the packet...

Kinda hard to ignore that, to be honest.



But we (yes, me too) do.

Denying the effects is very dumb though.

a reply to: neutronflux


The problem you have is that special interest groups on whatever side of an argument they are, generally skew and distort the facts to bolster their arguments.

That said, yes, smoking kills, it can cause cancer, make heart disease worse, give you a stroke, emphysema all sorts of things.

The kicker is though, that it doesnt always do that, somehow, some people get away with it, yet the health lobby paints this "Reefer Madness" kind of hysteria over everything smoking related and the result is, people shrug and decide because the absolute, worst case scenario that is regularly pushed is pretty much rubbish, the rest of the health lobby argument is untrustworthy also.

Remember the times when most people smoked, are happy and could afford healthcare

Now that, many are not smoking, healthcare premiums (and mental issues) have skyrocketed.

My mom was a multi-pack a day chain smoker for most of her life. She struggled constantly with pneumonia and lung abcesses, had huge chunks of lung tissue removed from both sides resulting in two long painful hospital stays in intensive care.

She now suffers from COPD and has to carry around an oxygen tank just to function day to day.

Her last bout with illness was in the form of colon cancer and had to have her lower intestine removed. Was that from the smoking or her heavy drinking? Or from a combo of both? No idea, to be honest. She also had cervical cancer and had to have a full hysterectomy.

She's since quit both drinking and smoking, but honestly, the damage is done and can't be reversed. Anyone thinking smoking tobacco is even remotely good for you is delusional.

They caused my wife to die prematurely. She had asthma and developed COPD on top of that. I tried to get her to quit but it only made her smoke even more. She spent 13 days in intensive care and ended up suffering terribly before she was taken off of life support.

If smoking tobacco as normally practiced in our culture was healthy, why would there be a conspiracy to produce false medical studies to prove otherwise?

To remove the largest , most powerful lobbyist group in Congress and pave the way for oil lobbyists to take over
Thats one question down and answered

I have watched grandparents and parents have health issues from smoking, and die from smoking.

I have watched many folks die of cancer (including lung cancer) that had never even been around a cigarette
That is statement 1 put to rest

Now for an insert of a little known fact
Research scientists believe that ALL cancer is genetic . Every single one of us carries a dormant cancer gene. It only takes something that may be particular to the person to trigger it.

# 1 cause of cancer per research scientists and doctors today ? Diabetes. No , not smoking.

The dangers of smoking were not falsified. The lab tests were performed under very extreme procedures , Rhesus monkeys strapped to a board with a large pipe ran down into their lungs and taped in (no pure air) . An average of 20 packs of cigarettes were pumped directly into the monkeys lungs.

And I dont even smoke...well , anymore.

Since we are talking about personal anecdotes instead of scientific ecperiments with comtrol groups, I may as well contribute to the madness.

A close friend of mine smoked for decades, got COPD, and needs an oxygen tank. She quit smoking and started using those electronic cigs (which are probably also really bad for you) and immediately her breathing improved, she could walk further, she had far fewer ridiculous coughing spells. She continues to improve incrementally since she quit. I didn’t need convincing before, but to see someone deteriorate so badly while smoking and then immediately improve after quitting, well that says a lot. She’s still on oxygen, though. Imagine if she had quit 20 years ago.

When I die, I want to be sick. I want to know it's coming, and make everyone around me miserable when I go.

I don't want to be surprised. World class athletes that pop an aorta while checking the mail one day... tragic irony. Early smoking could have kept them off of the track... leading longer, more expensive lives.

Smokers tend to have fewer deaths due to extreme sports such as skiing, or contact sports like football. Bowling can be a bit tricky for a smoker, but only one that drinks.

a reply to: neutronflux

Roll a joint . roll a joint , and light it at the end . take a puff , take a puff, and pass it to a friend



never believe everything you read on the net !

a reply to: Gothmog

To remove the largest , most powerful lobbyist group in Congress and pave the way for oil lobbyists to take over
Thats one question down and answered

Sorry, I don’t follow the logic?

Why would the government seek to limit getting paid by two large lobbyists groups? And limit the taxes collected from tobacco sales. Who? By medical lobbyists? Where smoking results in more work for them by giving them a bigger pool of illnesses?

Now for an insert of a little known fact
Research scientists believe that ALL cancer is genetic .

I don’t think that is true. Sorry. Some people are genetically more resilient than others. I get that. But take radiation for example. Exposure to any radiation increases one’s chance to get cancer. Cancer from radiation exposure is not dependent on genetics. Cancer is anything that causes abnormal cell growth. People which work with certain chemicals have higher cancer rates would be another example.

originally posted by: stonerwilliam
a reply to: neutronflux

Roll a joint . roll a joint , and light it at the end . take a puff , take a puff, and pass it to a friend

never believe everything you read on the net !

Don’t follow?
I am referring to medical studies that outline the dangers of smoking industrial produced cigarettes, and the people that believe those studies are false propaganda.

Just for the anecdotal stuff... my great grandmother smoked and lived to be 107... or 111... for some reason nobody seems to know exactly what her birth year was. Maybe the records just weren't great or something because she was born in a rural sort of area. My grandmother was 101 and she smoked a carton a week... that's more than a pack a day. Does that mean that smoking isn't dangerous? Of course not. It is. It certainly causes health problems. That doesn't mean anybody who smokes will die when they're 50.

I think there's even worse stuff said about secondhand smoke. There is a lot out there that suggests... not that it doesn't cause harm... but that there really isn't enough evidence suggesting it does. Yet 'they' seem to put out this story that secondhand smoke is the devil itself. You hear it all the time. The Penn and Teller show 'Bull-' goes so far as to say there has never been a single well established medical study to show it causes any harm. I don't know if that's true entirely... or perhaps it has changed since that episode was made... but I will say I don't believe there is evidence to show it is as dangerous as people seem to suggest.

To quote South Park, "If it gives me cancer when I'm 80 I don't care... who really wants to be 90 anyway?"

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Gothmog

To remove the largest , most powerful lobbyist group in Congress and pave the way for oil lobbyists to take over
Thats one question down and answered

Sorry, I don’t follow the logic?

Why would the government seek to limit getting paid by two large lobbyists groups? And limit the taxes collected from tobacco sales. Who? By medical lobbyists? Where smoking results in more work for them by giving them a bigger pool of illnesses?

Now for an insert of a little known fact
Research scientists believe that ALL cancer is genetic .

I don’t think that is true. Sorry. Some people are genetically more resilient than others. O get that. But take radiation for example. Exposure to any radiation increases one’s chance to get cancer. Cancer from radiation exposure is not dependent on genetics. Cancer is anything that causes abnormal cell growth. People which work with certain chemicals have higher cancer rates would be another example.

I simple word -CONTROL

Chaos is good for business , maybe they have a new way to make people sick and keep the bucks rolling in think m/j
it is not long ago in the uk that you could be fined thousands of bucks for smoking in your own workvan . alone on your way to a job , now stick that on steroids .

Lucky the UK parliament threw out a law one year after the smoking ban in pubs/cafes that would stop the public smoking on the high streets and near Gov buildings like in Oz .

For those that mentioned family that lived to a ripe old age with no ill effects from smoking that is called genetics, some people are resistant to things like that most are not.

My anecdotal evidence, my great granddad lived into his 90s smoked cigars daily, would wake up in the middle of the night to have a beer and sit on the front porch for a bit before going back to bed, and worked in a coal mine his entire adult life.

The majority of people will not have happy ending if they spend large chunks of their life smoking, the only way to no for certain where you fall on the scale of resistance to the ill effects is to smoke and by the time you know its to late.

Just the threat of something like copd is enough for me to stay away.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Gothmog

To remove the largest , most powerful lobbyist group in Congress and pave the way for oil lobbyists to take over
Thats one question down and answered

Sorry, I don’t follow the logic?

Why would the government seek to limit getting paid by two large lobbyists groups? And limit the taxes collected from tobacco sales. Who? By medical lobbyists? Where smoking results in more work for them by giving them a bigger pool of illnesses?

Now for an insert of a little known fact
Research scientists believe that ALL cancer is genetic .

I don’t think that is true. Sorry. Some people are genetically more resilient than others. I get that. But take radiation for example. Exposure to any radiation increases one’s chance to get cancer. Cancer from radiation exposure is not dependent on genetics. Cancer is anything that causes abnormal cell growth. People which work with certain chemicals have higher cancer rates would be another example.

First :
You didnt read , did you .
To remove the largest , most powerful lobbyist group

Second :

I don’t think that is true. Sorry. Some people are genetically more resilient than others.

Dont shoot the messenger , I can only state what 2 nice ME looking specialists from the WHO told me. Face to Face.

Cancer is anything that causes abnormal cell growth. People which work with certain chemicals have higher cancer rates would be another example.

And the reasoning BEHIND the abnormal cell growth ? Key word here - growth , in relation to abnormal cellular
Again , dont shoot the messenger , go speak to the specialists at the World Health Organization .
Amazing what you learn by speaking to folks face to face (in a hospital room , lying there recovering) . I had specialists from around the world stop by to say hello....I would have felt honored , if not for the reason.
BTW - most times they will not even begin to treat cancer without getting the glucose levels down , nowadays .

a reply to: c2oden



Which is strange as the longest living humans have been heavy smokers.

Just posing a thought here.... for the people who smoked everyday of their lives and lived to be 100+ yeaars = could it be that they used homegrown tobacco and rolled their own? Only theee commercially made cigs have a huge amount of chemicals that are toxic to us. Perhaps plain tobacco - while not great to inhale - is better for us.