Thereputic Benefits of Tobacco/Nicotine

[olivercramden]

I've been running across articles on the benefits of tobacco with increasing frequency lately. They get little to no press, obviously, but I'll post links here as I round them up.
~Assuming there's any interest, of course.
I'm celebrating 40 years of smoking, as of last June, and am loving it. It's saved my life on numerous occasions. (Driving with sleep deprivation; having matches/lighter handy,etc.)
I'm convinced w/o a shadow of a doubt that cancer is genetic. You'll get it or not, wether exposed to smoke, or not.

Jeanne Calment, 122 years, 164 days old. Oldest living person ever documented, was an avid smoker until age 117. In fact, of the top ten oldest folks ever, very few didn't smoke.
http://listverse.com/2010/02/07/top-10-oldest-people-ever/

This next link lists recent thereputic benefits of smoking/nicotine
http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/therap.htm

I'll dig up some traditional and folk remedies through history here as well.

Note to Site Administrators: If this topic is already discussed elsewhere on the Forum, please accept my apologies, and don't hesitate to delete this redundancy. I'm new, and haven't seen it.

 

[Jitterbugdude]

Go ahead and post away!
I have read THOUSANDS of papers over the years but I get very frustrated with reading them. The vast majority (99%?) are so obviously biased against tobacco it makes the results null and void. Even studies that show a statistical benefit of smoking will report in the "Results" sections the opposite.. that smoking is bad.

 

[DonH]

There's a book called The Health Benefits of Smoking that assembles some of the evidence. It seems to have a good effect on the brain, increasing acetylcholine. Some studies show it reduces the incidence of Alzheimer's and Parkinsons. It increases red blood cell count and may help with the immune system. In 17th England they used to force kids to smoke during times of plague. And it's good for attentional deficit disorder. Before they had Ritalin I think many kids who now are doped up by Big Pharma just were those who started smoking at 11. I think Ritalin acts a lot like nicotine.

 

[Steve2md]

interesting thread...im definitely tuned in

 

[SmokesAhoy]

Its awesome for staying alert on graveyard shifts

 

[Tom_in_TN]

Keep it going guys. The more info, the better. Just keep in mind that it matters not what the real facts indicate, what matters most is what THEY want the non-tobacco users to Think, to Believe, to Act on and to.....

Anyway, it may be a real fact that tobacco use could lead some humans to a higher incidence of cancer, sickness, disease or other ailmemts. My take is this: they can not prove that smoking whole leaf tobacco that has not been treated/processed (whatever term you care to use) leads to a HIGHER incidence of the above mentioned health affects. The most striking flaw in the early analysis regarding cancer and tobacco use was the very high incidence of humans who worked in occupations where the workers were exposed to higher than normally aceptable levels of particulates in the air. I mean to say this, the studies indicated that if a human worked in a dirty, dusty type job AND SMOKED TOBACCO they were at an elevated risk of developing lung cancer. To me that is common sense reasoning that those occupations were not conducive to tobacco smokers and we do not need to get upset about it.

What has not been shown to be true is that any use of tobacco will POSITIVELY and ABSOLUTELY lead to a human developing cancer. The real and truthful answer to the question, "Does the use of tobacco lead to a higher incidence of cancer?" is IT DEPENDS......on a number of factors, and will lead an honest researcher/scientist into an enlightened state of mind instead of a swampy, messy, bog.

 

[Chicken]

i lol'd

at the benifit's of smoking,

i.e.> allways having a lighter, lol

 

[SmokeStack]

Go ahead and post away!
I have read THOUSANDS of papers over the years but I get very frustrated with reading them. The vast majority (99%?) are so obviously biased against tobacco it makes the results null and void. Even studies that show a statistical benefit of smoking will report in the "Results" sections the opposite.. that smoking is bad.

I took a class in carcinogenisis and the first thing my professor said on the first day of class is "If you are a smoker, I can guarantee you that, by the end of the course, you will quit smoking." Obviously, it did not turnout that way for me.

I agree that smoking introduces some very potent carcinogens into the human body. There are several epidemiological studies and toxicological experiments that link smoking to cancer. For the most part, these reports provide convincing arguments that smoking causes cancer and I myself agree with their findings to a certain extent.

What I don't like is the bias in these reports. In order for scientists to get funding for their experiments, they must indicate the purpose for these experiments. So scientists stand a better chance getting money to support their research if they state that their experiments demonstrate the ill effects of tobacco smoking. Thus, tobacco smoking serves as a scapegoat to get cash for research projects. There's a ton of politics involved with giving out grant money - especially at the scientific level.

I speak from experience. Our research group went to publish a paper on the synthesis if a particular class of compounds (beta-chlorofurans). In order to get published in a respectable journal we synthesized on example of a compound that had potential anti-viral properties. If we did not do this, it would have been difficult to publish our work, but by mentioning that our work could be used to treat a certain illness, our article made the cover page.

The point I am trying to make is that much research is biased - and getting grant money is partly at fault. Fortunately, research on the benefits of tobacco are starting to emerge. Ultimately, at this point in time, it comes down to the following:

Do the benefits of smoking outweigh the risk of getting cancer or emphysema?

As for me, I enjoy tobacco and that's all there is to it.

 

[johnlee1933]

Having spent 35 years in research I agree wholeheartedly with Smoke. Grants for original research are as much politics as they are "need" or "useful". It's the old "Go with the flow and get the dough."

To succeed in research you must publish. Weather it's important or not is irrelevant. It is an unfortunate fact that research papers are rarely read. One can hope the writer reads them. Mostly the editor does it's his job but the editor is not concerned with content, just form. The writers boss sometimes reads them but it is not high on his work schedule. The publication that prints it has got to have volume. That's what sells directed advertising. So, the paper gets printed is this months volume of Abra CA Dabra Society. Very few of the professionals who get this tome will read this article and soon it becomes the front page on the bird cage floor. Fortunately some important papers that run this route are read and are useful.

That said I have another beef. I am almost 80 years old. (NO, I'm not beefing about that). By the standards I was born into I should be dead three time already (pneumonia, ruptured appendix, strangulated hernia) but improving medicine pulled me thru. Yet if I die of lung (or any sort) of cancer it will be duly noted I was a smoker. If I died of any of the others it would not. As you age something will kill you. Cancer and heart disease are at the top of the list. Perhaps it's not smoking but my age that will finally do me in. The doctor has to put SOMETHING on the death certificate. My ex wife died of lung cancer. It was noted she was a smoker. Her sister and mother also died of lung cancer and neither one of them smoked. No mention of their non smoking was made. Genetics was not suggested. There are nations with higher smoking rates than the US with lower cancer rates. It's possible that being underdeveloped they may still be having more deaths not related to advanced years. The other way to look at this is take the deaths of those in the advanced age group of a lower smoking population and see how the cancer, heart disease numbers compare. Is it possible the numbers are skewed to reach the desired goal? Is it POSSIBLE that while smoking is not good for you the combination of smoking and all the other shit we ingest is what's LETHAL? If that were the case it would not be in big businesses best interest to publicize it. And like it or not big business buys what (including legislation/legislators) they want.

My Grandfather used to say "Figures don't lie but liars figure." I expect it's still true.

End of Rant -- Sorry about that,

John

 

[DonH]

You're absolutely right, John. Once you say on the hospital questionnaire that you smoked, everything will be attributed to that. My father died at age 92. He was a two pack a day smoker from the age of 15 to 45 when he quit. In his last year he was declining and in the hospital a lot. He got pneumonia once and the nurse said,
Well of course he smoked. He hadn't smoked a thing in 45 years! He had advanced congestive heart failure and they blamed the pneumonia on smoking 45 years ago. And he was over ninety!

I also am much more worried about radiation when it comes to lung cancer. Lung cancer rates skyrocketed after 1945 when they started atmospheric nuclear testing. And now we have Fukushima. Which is also why it's important not to use non organic phosphate fertilizers on your tobacco so there won't be as much Polonium in it.

 

[johnlee1933]

Blaming anything on smoking is the thing to do today. Right (Possible) or wrong (very possible) it's the most popular scapegoat today. Drugs and booze have fallen back in the race. It makes you wonder if the distilleries and drug cartels are financing the studies and publicity to keep the heat off themselves. This kind of money would also explain some legislators adamant positions on tobacco. Politicians produce nothing. So power and money are their only goals. Good government ? My Rosy Red A__ !

John

 

[SmokeStack]

Lung cancer rates skyrocketed after 1945 when they started atmospheric nuclear testing.

That's an interesting remark. In the carcinogenisis course that I took, my professor said that the surge in deaths related to cancer during that time was a result in an increase of smoking during WWI. American soldiers were given cigarettes during WWI from our government. As a result, a huge population of smokers emerged. By the time the 1940's and 50's rolled along, this generation of smokers began to die - of cancer - and many have speculated that this was due to an increasing rate of smokers from WWI.

I'm sure that nuclear testing, plasticizers, pesticides, herbicides, organophosphate fertilizers, chlorinated solvents, tetraethyllead, radium, polychlorinated biphenyls, artificial food additives and dioxanes had nothing to do with it.

 

[DonH]

That last bit cracked me up, Smokestack. I find it hard to believe that smoking rates were that much higher because of free cigarettes during the war. But I've never seen any statistics.

 

[Jitterbugdude]

There might be some truth to that, but for the wrong reasons. Cigs were given to the U.S. troops in both WW1 and WW2, but it was in the early 20's-30's that Big Tobacco really started putting additives into their tobacco. You simply do no see cancer (from smoking) prior to this time.

 

[NorelliGage]

Smoking helps me a lot.
ease pain.
stress free and
I feel so not alone.
That is why I love smoking.

 

[BarG]

Smoking helps me a lot.
ease pain.
stress free and
I feel so not alone.
That is why I love smoking.

I agree with most everything but the alone thing. A good smoke makes you feel good.
If your a loner than maybe you should look at it different like a .....I don't know...friend.
A good cigar could make your day.

Me ive been addicted to nicotine for 45 yrs. no exuses.

However , I just recently started enjoying it and have cut cigarette smoking more than half.

 

[SmokesAhoy]

That sounds really sad actually. Hope things turn around.

 

[wazzappenning]

There might be some truth to that, but for the wrong reasons. Cigs were given to the U.S. troops in both WW1 and WW2, but it was in the early 20's-30's that Big Tobacco really started putting additives into their tobacco. You simply do no see cancer (from smoking) prior to this time.

im going to have to agree with this. and rather than come out and say" this year we added radioactive nanoparticles to keep it firesafe", or chemical x or y, they just keep telling you that smoking is bad for you, without really telling why or that they could make it safer.

then when you get sick, or start discovering what theyre actually putting in cigarettes (without any concerns for you and knowing full well the effects of the additives), they can just say, "well we told you it was bad for you so you cant sue us" like you signed a disclaimer.

also have you ever noticed (in canada at least) they always say "smoking" is bad. they dont say "tobacco" is bad. here big tobacco also prides themselves in saying additive free tobacco, without saying "we just add all the bad crap to the paper"

deciphering wording is very important. remember, made with 100% real beef? "with" is the key word.

 

[SmokesAhoy]

Another factor might simply be moderation. A little alcohol can be good, spending every day drunk isn't. I wonder what consumption those centinarians had?

 

[BarG]

Another factor might simply be moderation. A little alcohol can be good, spending every day drunk isn't. I wonder what consumption those centinarians had?

Nobody really likes a little alcohol any more than they like a half a cigarette. Or am I mistaken? Moderation by the moderater huh! People who live longer usualy learn how to moderate. I'm from a long lived overindulgent line myself. The mid 80's and 90's is not uncommon.

Edit;" Hit it like you live, hard and fast"