Buy Tobacco Leaf Online | Whole Leaf Tobacco

The True Truth to Non Big-Tobacco Tobacco (project)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Michibacy

Northern tobacco grower
Joined
May 10, 2012
Messages
1,560
Points
63
Location
Michigan
Sorry for the odd title but here's my goal:

Create a good list of information that you and I can use to teach people that not all tobacco is as bad as super-processed big tobacco.

I think we need science backed information (so we can back up our statements with proven fact).

The media/government seem to have throw out one sided statements to scare the sheeple into hating tobacco. If we can, use a compare/contrast statement such as:

"Yes tobacco has carcinogens in it just as many other items, and even plants do, but when it is grown in a safe manner, handled and processed in a safe manner, certain chemicals like X Y and Z are not added. This in turn aids in reducing the amount of carcinogens in the tobacco"

There are SO many anti tobacco tv ads, radio ads, internet ads, billboards etc that I can't stand it anymore. Please help me get this list started so that we can convince others to follow in our footsteps in growing this amazing plant!

I know Bob and Don have loads of information, if you guys wouldn't mind, please help!

Michibacy
 

Michibacy

Northern tobacco grower
Joined
May 10, 2012
Messages
1,560
Points
63
Location
Michigan
I'm asking for a list of data if possible, somewhat compiled. From reading here I get the impression that this tobacco is safer (not completely safe obviously) compared to big tobacco. I just want facts if possible please
 

Jitterbugdude

Moderator
Founding Member
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
4,266
Points
113
Location
Northeast Maryland
Are you looking for something like: Smoking decreases the risk of contracting Alzheimer's Disease (AD) by approximately 50%. There are at least two known mechanisms by which tobacco accomplishes this. First it up regulates the nicotinic acetylcholine (N-A) receptors. These are the same receptors in AD patients that have died off. There are a lot of prescriptions on the market that attempt to save the N-A receptors in AD patients. All of these fail becasue once a patient has been diagnosed with AD it is too late to rescue the dead receptors. The second mode is tobacco's ability to produce Advanced Glycosolated End Products (AGEs) in the brain. Normally, AGEs are not a good thing but in the brain it is thought that the inhibit the brain's ability to form the Beta amyloid that is the hall mark of AD.

I've always told people to look at life and consider what they want to get out of it. If AD runs in your family, then take up smoking!
 

Michibacy

Northern tobacco grower
Joined
May 10, 2012
Messages
1,560
Points
63
Location
Michigan
Jitter that is exactly the type of thing I'm looking for. I receive so much "why tobacco is bad" but never hear (except on here) what the benefits are really. Thanks!
 

oldsouth

Banned
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
202
Points
0
Location
N Georgia
Here' my contribution:

I developed severe asthma at age 5 - the life threatening kind. I spent the next 15 years on prescription medications that did permanent damage to my heart, caused me to be very tired and withdrawn as a teenager and left me with hand tremors. At 18, I decided to start trying to figure out how to medicate myself only as needed. The first thing I found was the herb ma huang - Chinese ephedra. This worked very well and caused much less increase in heart rate and blood pressure than the prescription adderall (dextroamphetamine with another amphetamine that is somewhat similar to crystal meth) I was given nearly every day before age 10. Then, a few folks had heart attacks due to overdosing on ephedrine, so the FDA banned it. I then, turned to primatene mist (epinephrine) and quite by accident tobacco and bourbon. I worked out a lot back then and had gone for a run when a bad asthma attack hit. I was out of primatene, so I got a cup of coffee and just tried to relax and breathe deeply until it passed. It occurred to me that a cigar might help me relax, so I fired up an El Rey del Mundo immediately, my bronchioles dialated, my lungs relaxed and I could breath. So, I poured a drink and that helped even more. The combination of tobacco and bourbon was almost as good as a rescue inhaler and better than any pill. I called in Rush Limbaugh's show soon after and he thought it was pretty amazing. After I called, several doctors called in and said that nicotine is, indeed a bronchia- dilator. Last year, the EPA banned Primatene Mist due to supposed "greenhouse gasses" in the propellent. The idea being that it is better to spare the precious environment from a tiny amount of CFS and let people die then to let people treat themselves with a tried and true product that helps with asthma and CPD. So now, all I have is tobacco and bourbon... and I'm doing pretty much okay.
 

SmokeStack

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2012
Messages
368
Points
0
Location
Detroit area
I believe that tobacco has both good and bad health attributes. I agree with Jitterbug's assessment on Alzheimer's Disease as being a good attribute. And there are many more positive effects mediated by other chemicals naturally occurring in tobacco, such as anatabine. However, in keeping an open mind, I cannot say that other chemicals found in tobacco, such as nitrosamines, should be ignored. Nitrosamines are notorious carcinogens. Emphysema cannot be ignored either.

I am not trying to antagonize anyone here who is pro-tobacco or anti-tobacco. I am just playing devil's advocate:

Someone may argue that the beneficial components of tobacco could be extracted and the extracts could be packaged in pill form. Taking the purified extracts in pill form would bypass the ingestion of the harmful components resulting from smoking.

For me there is more at stake here. I admit that I smoke for two reasons. First and foremost, I find that smoking good tobacco is a pleasure. I enjoy savoring the aroma and taste of a good smoke. Second, I am addicted. I could chew nicotine gum to get my fix, but the pleasure of smoking has no alternative.
 

oldsouth

Banned
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
202
Points
0
Location
N Georgia
Just finished watching the debate - so I'll answer now...

I have two major problems with the way the issue of tobacco is address - 1) Tobacco is addictive. 2) Tobacco causes cancer.

While not a lawyer by any means, I come from a heavily legal background and to me, words mean things.

Tobacco CAN be addictive. I've used tobacco for more than 15 years. Some months i may smoke or chew several times a day for weeks on end. Other months, it won't even occur to me to use tobacco. I've certainly never had a craving. Many people do. I don't.

Tobacco CAN/MAY cause cancer. Perhaps would be better stated that if you are predisposed to cancer, certain carcinogens in tobacco may trigger cell mutation. Some folks smoke their entire lives, living to be very old and never get cancer. Some smoke briefly and get cancer.

I believe a clarification of terms and claims would be the first step in coming to an honest discussion on the issues - broad, sweeping claims do not help.
 

SmokeStack

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2012
Messages
368
Points
0
Location
Detroit area
Just finished watching the debate - so I'll answer now...

I have two major problems with the way the issue of tobacco is address - 1) Tobacco is addictive. 2) Tobacco causes cancer.

While not a lawyer by any means, I come from a heavily legal background and to me, words mean things.

Tobacco CAN be addictive. I've used tobacco for more than 15 years. Some months i may smoke or chew several times a day for weeks on end. Other months, it won't even occur to me to use tobacco. I've certainly never had a craving. Many people do. I don't.

Tobacco CAN/MAY cause cancer. Perhaps would be better stated that if you are predisposed to cancer, certain carcinogens in tobacco may trigger cell mutation. Some folks smoke their entire lives, living to be very old and never get cancer. Some smoke briefly and get cancer.

I believe a clarification of terms and claims would be the first step in coming to an honest discussion on the issues - broad, sweeping claims do not help.

I agree with you on in regards to CAN/MAY. My Grandfather lived to 92 and smoked non-filtered cigs since his teens. My purpose for my post was to play devil's advocate based on the assumption that smoking DOES cause cancer and IS addictive.

For my degree I had to take a lot of course work including Biochemical Toxicology, Carcinogenesis, etc. In fact the department chair who taught Carcinogenesis said on the first day of lecture "if you are currently a smoker, I can guarantee that you will quit by the end of the semester." I must be the exception. Throughout my studies, the "dangers" of smoking has been pounded in my head over and over again using an ample amount of respectable research. So it is hard for me to shrug off my education. I do believe that the so-called "dangers" of smoking is exaggerated since anything related to cancer research brings in the money to support a professor's research. I cannot say with absolute certainty that smoking will cause cancer. My Grandfather is a good example. I think it's a matter of probability.
 

oldsouth

Banned
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
202
Points
0
Location
N Georgia
I certainly agree - the devil's advocate or "dominate negative" as it is called in my field is absolutely essential.... if anyone wonders why, just read the Big Black Book of Communism - 10s of millions purposely killed while the NY Times and the "intelligencia" sang the praises of Uncle Joe and the communist reformers. Somewhere eI have a recent article by a nutritionist that you will enjoy - I'll try to dig it up for you - where she examines the claims by vegetarians and vegans and actually (gasp) compares the nutritive value of fruits, vegetables, nuts and legumes to red meat. You might also enjoy some info I have somewhere on file from my days working in politics where I corresponded frequently with the man who designed the satellites that measure the earth's radiant energy... lets just say that he didn't believe the "evidence" on man caused climate change added up! Of course, that doens't mean that we should all start burning coal in our backyards.... but, when did common sense become so uncommon?
 

skychaser

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
1,117
Points
113
Location
NE Washington
Here's one for you.

ULM professors see anticancer potential in the most unlikely sources – tobacco leaves

http://www.ulm.edu/universityrelations/news/july11/anticancer.html

I had another link to an article which I somehow have lost. It was about studies that have shown nicotine to greatly increase the knitting together of capillaries during the first 3 days after surgery or a major wound. On day 4 it went neutral and day 5 and beyond nicotine slowed healing some what when compared to control groups. It concluded by saying how nicotine may soon become a short term medication your doctor may prescribe after an injury or surgery to promote healing.
 

johnlee1933

Moderator
Founding Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2011
Messages
3,970
Points
0
Location
Near Danbury, CT
I certainly agree - the devil's advocate or "dominate negative" as it is called in my field is absolutely essential.... if anyone wonders why, just read the Big Black Book of Communism - 10s of millions purposely killed while the NY Times and the "intelligencia" sang the praises of Uncle Joe and the communist reformers. Somewhere eI have a recent article by a nutritionist that you will enjoy - I'll try to dig it up for you - where she examines the claims by vegetarians and vegans and actually (gasp) compares the nutritive value of fruits, vegetables, nuts and legumes to red meat. You might also enjoy some info I have somewhere on file from my days working in politics where I corresponded frequently with the man who designed the satellites that measure the earth's radiant energy... lets just say that he didn't believe the "evidence" on man caused climate change added up! Of course, that doens't mean that we should all start burning coal in our backyards.... but, when did common sense become so uncommon?
I believe it was Mark Twain who is quoted as saying "Common sense is the least common thing in the world."

John
 

Jitterbugdude

Moderator
Founding Member
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
4,266
Points
113
Location
Northeast Maryland

FmGrowit

Head Honcho
Staff member
Joined
May 17, 2011
Messages
5,281
Points
113
Location
Freedom, Ohio, United States
I certainly agree - the devil's advocate or "dominate negative" as it is called in my field is absolutely essential.... if anyone wonders why, just read the Big Black Book of Communism - 10s of millions purposely killed while the NY Times and the "intelligencia" sang the praises of Uncle Joe and the communist reformers. Somewhere eI have a recent article by a nutritionist that you will enjoy - I'll try to dig it up for you - where she examines the claims by vegetarians and vegans and actually (gasp) compares the nutritive value of fruits, vegetables, nuts and legumes to red meat. You might also enjoy some info I have somewhere on file from my days working in politics where I corresponded frequently with the man who designed the satellites that measure the earth's radiant energy... lets just say that he didn't believe the "evidence" on man caused climate change added up! Of course, that doens't mean that we should all start burning coal in our backyards.... but, when did common sense become so uncommon?

This post is pushing the limits, but has some general legitimacy to the topic.

Please do not reply directly to this post as it an incubator for throwing (what could be) a valuable thread way off topic.
 

oldsouth

Banned
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
202
Points
0
Location
N Georgia
My point is that experts often disagree, but only one side gets reported - whether due to seeking grant monies or accepted assumptions. In many instances, we are seeing that science is being trumped by political correctness. One is supposed to form a hypothesis and then test it out to see if it is true. These days, too many people with way too much respect state a conclusion and then make it work by ignoring contrary data. This is certainly true in the study of tobacco and health.

No study should be taken at face value. You have to see who is funding it, the methodology and the idealogical biases of the group doing the study. If "experts" will ignore the data on radiant energy in the climate debate, they will certainly ignore any health benefits of tobacco if their goal is to publish a study on its negative impacts.
 

wazzappenning

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2012
Messages
369
Points
0
Location
edmonton
in my opinion, just about every thing anti tobacco says, puts on tv and more to the point, prints on packs (google cigarette warnings) is true. the contents of those packages will do just what they say they will do. why? because its the monsanto of tobacco. its not really tobacco anymore. sure theres some in there, but why do they need to add all that other crap to it? just like food you buy at the grocery store now.

one needs to parallel organic natural food vs commercial food production to natural tobacco vs commercial cigarettes. it should be about the same result. basically we need a food inc. for tobacco.

all someone has to do is google fsc cigarettes and polonium cigarettes, to see that commercial tobacco adds, and neglects to do anything about things that do not need to be in cigarettes. or, give a few cigarette companies a call and ask simple questions like do you put additives in your cigarettes? does your fsc paper contain metallic nanoparticles? do your cigarettes contain polonium or lead? it doesnt take long to figure out the phone operator is bs-ing you and has a list of answers and really doesnt know anything themselves.
 

oldsouth

Banned
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
202
Points
0
Location
N Georgia
If flue cured tobacco does indeed contain more ammonia, then it would be unhealthier than tobacco products with less ammonia. Ammonia builds up in the system, is tough to process by the liver and can become very toxic.
 

deluxestogie

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
23,931
Points
113
Location
near Blacksburg, VA
One reason why Aunt Millie could have smoked cigarettes into her 90s

physorg.com 10/19/12 said:
Cigarette smoking is a major risk factor for emphysema, one of the leading symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Each year, this deadly condition kills more than three million people worldwide. Yet, despite the irreversible cell damage wrought by tobacco smoke, around only one in five lifelong smokers develop the degenerative lung disease. This indicates that some people have genetic factors that predispose them to the condition, whereas others harbor DNA variants that offer protection.

http://phys.org/news/2012-10-key-lung-protein-cigarette-smoke-induced-emphysema.html
This one finding suggests that a minority of cigarette smokers (~20%) are at a substantially greater risk of developing COPD.

Bob
 

Knucklehead

Moderator
Founding Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2012
Messages
12,171
Points
113
Location
NE Alabama
The study I read about flue cured tobacco was basically comparing the rate of cancer in countries that flue cure to the countries that don't flue cure. Flue cured countries (US and UK) were way out in front.
 

deluxestogie

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
23,931
Points
113
Location
near Blacksburg, VA
There is a significant confounding factor in studies of long-term effects of smoking flue-cured tobacco. In the past, the exhaust gas (not the smoke) of the combustion source (natural gas stoves, etc.) was not well separated from the tobacco. These non-smoke fumes tend to convert higher levels of nitrosamines in the leaf. Currently, at least in the US, the heat sources are situated completely outside the flue-cure chamber, with a wholly separate exhaust system, and a heat exchanger used to transmit heat to the chamber. Big tobacco tests the leaf for chemical signs of exhaust contaminants, and rejects leaf that exceeds a designated level. The result is that flue-cured tobacco in the US today has dramatically lower nitrosamine levels than in the past.

If the heat source is electric (say, with leverhead's chamber, or the Cozy Can), then there is no risk of increased nitrosamins from exhaust gas.

Bob
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top