The war on Tobacco

[Jitterbugdude]

Is there any studies on cancer from people who smoked there own tobacco and not store bought products ?

The closest you will find to answering this are studies done with cigar smokers. It's not "grow your own tobacco" but its about as chemical free as you are going to get. All cause mortality decreases in people that smoke 1 to 2 cigars per day. This is not the same for cigarettes. But then again, you inhale cigarette smoke along with hundreds of toxic chemicals. Pipe tobacco is on par with cigarettes because they add tons of flavoring agents to tobacco smoke.

Another interesting fact about cigar smokers is that emphysema increases with cigar usage(starting about about 3-5 cigars) until you smoke about 6-7 per day and then it drops like a rock. Why is that? I don't know but if I was a researcher I would love to find out. And here is the problem I have with society. We have so demonized tobacco that we refuse to investigate any possible benefits from it. True, commercial cigarettes increase your risk of cancer, but cigars lower your risk of death from all causes... so let's fund some studies.. of I forgot... there's NOTHING good about tobacco!

 

[Tom_in_TN]

Some of that is interesting stuff. When I smoked 6-8 hand rolled cigars/day I did not have a cough or any ill effects that I could determine. I've recently picked up pipe smoking again, a mild aromatic blend, and the coughing started a couple weeks later. Now, I just puff it mostly and the coughing has decreased, a lot. Would love to get some of these seedlings up and growing in the dirt. One step closer to truly chemical and additive-free tobacco.

 

[CoralReefs]

My argument is not with people who claim that the products produced by Big Tobacco are harmful and could very well lead to causing certain cancers. Virtually all tobacco companies add hundreds of chemicals to cigarettes using very complicated processes. Many of those chemicals have also been linked to causing certain cancers.

Some so-called scientist, as well as politicians and political activists have linked a widely used plant leaf to be the cause of certain cancers in the minds of the virtually everyone on the earth. I assert the only things to support that reasoning is SHODDY science. VERY SHODDY SCIENCE!!!

Anyone who touts that the tobacco leaf, if smoked, chewed or whatever by itself (not processed in a way that adds the sort of chemicals that have been linked to causing certain cancers) has ABSOLUTELY NO SCIENTIFIC FACTS to back up that assertion. All, or virtuually all, of the so-called scientific studies are done with the 'tobacco' products produced by BIG TOBACCO. Prove my statement to be false by directing anyone of us to any rigorous study, that was peer reviewed and that used scientifically accepted methods and that also conclusively indicates or links the act of smoking or chewing tobacco leaf THAT HAS NOT BEEN PROCESSED BY the above referenced tobacco companies is linked to causing certain cancers.


I believe almost everyone associates tobacco grown for personal use with the 'tobaaco' products sold by Big Tobacco and taxed by the governing authorities.

Interesting point. I highly doubt many studies have been done as I highly doubt many people out there use home grown tobacco (I'm gonna look anyway as I am curious now). Lets face it, we are a rare breed. That said, natural tobacco is becoming more popular with brands like "American Spirits" and such. Perhaps such studies will begin to pop up pretty soon here. The problem with such a study is if people are not already smoking additive free tobacco in large numbers, you kind of have to do an intervention study (IE ask people to change their habits so you can study them). With regards to something like tobacco which is strongly suspected of causing cancer and such, doing intervention studies leads to serious ethical problems. It would be like testing whether mountain dew stunts the growth of children by asking children who do not drink mountain dew to start drinking it. If you do in fact find that their growth is stunted- well, you the researcher kind of did that to them. The better alternative is to find kids who are already drinking it and compare them to those that are not. These studies are naturally weaker scientifically because they can be harder to control. Doing a google search, I did find a handful of references to a study that looked at the absorption of some compounds in additive free smoke and compared with commercial varieties, but the design seemed a bit questionable to me (They studied like 10 people...).

"Anyone who touts that the tobacco leaf, if smoked, chewed or whatever by itself (not processed in a way that adds the sort of chemicals that have been linked to causing certain cancers) has ABSOLUTELY NO SCIENTIFIC FACTS to back up that assertion."

Well... to be fair I would not go that far. The additives muddy things up a bit and add room for doubt- to say that they have absolutely no scientific facts whatsoever which back up the assertion that tobacco smoke can increase the risk of cancer is a bit strong. It would be like making the claim that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that eating foods like Twinkies can lead to obesity because all of the Twinkies studied have additives. Admittedly, in the case of tobacco, many of the additives are known carcinogens- but to dismiss all of the science on these grounds seems a little steep to me. Some tobacco studies date back pretty far, I wonder what the cancer rates were a long time ago and if additives were added. Then again, one would have to examine smoking trends as well. As John astutely observed- its a complicated issue. Health usually is.

 

[BarG]

Are their any recent whole leaf or homegrown tobacco smokers who have noticed a decrease in the amount of say cigarettes they smoke a day compared to store bought or natural brand tobaccos pre rolled. I have cut my cigarette consumption by half, although I did take up cigar smoking.

 

[BarG]

Theres nothin good about tobacco ....unless your having your morning coffee, taking your morning break, enjoying after your meals and while enjoying an ice cold beer. Not to mention a good time with the little woman always calls for a good smoke afterwards.

 

[deluxestogie]

I have major philosophical issues with many of the comments in this thread. Rather than just say, "Nunh Unh! Here's the real truth," I'll address other issues.

1. First of all, science is not a belief system. Science is a methodology. One might say it's the Missouri approach: Show me.
   
   It's not what I believe or support or wish were true that matters. It is the cumulative weight of evidence that matters.
   
   The underlying precept of the scientific method is one of "best guess," based on the preponderance of repeatable evidence. There is no such thing as scientific truth. There is only a best guess, based on repeatable observation. Given that we only observe objects and actions that we seek (unless they jump out and slap us in the face), invalid results of studies in all areas of science are common. Most dedicated scientists attempt to construct study designs that will minimize (never eliminate) confounding factors. But again, only those confounding factors that are evident are considered.
   
   As an example of unanticipated confounding factors, most of the tobacco-health studies of the 1950s and 1960s never considered the ubiquitous presence of asbestos used commonly in insulation, brake linings, certain sources of vermiculite, roofing shingles, etc, and the worldwide use of tetra-ethyl lead as a gasoline additive. During that same time frame, the widespread adoption of home and shop power tools filled the air smokers breathed with particulates of sheet-rock, fiberglass, wood dust, aerosolized petroleum products and concrete. Air pollution in urban areas was much worse then than today.
   
   What has become apparent over the ensuing decades is that such exposures multiply the harmful affects of tobacco smoke in the lungs. Coal dust and tobacco smoke--bad combination. Asbestos and tobacco smoke--bad combination. The impact on lung alveolar tissue is not an additive effect; it is a multiplying effect.
   
   So, that said, most of the early studies on tobacco gave us definitive results that have now become unclear. As more and more studies tease out more confounding factors, the preponderance of the evidence paints a more probable conclusion. It's just probability, not truth.
   
   
2. There are currently hundreds of thousands of studies published on the effects of tobacco. Most have various weaknesses in their design (too small a number of subjects; overlooked confounding factors; imprecise groupings of subjects as "smokers" or "non-smokers," rather than the more difficult assignment of tobacco types, mode of use, quantity of use, environment of use [outdoors vs. enclosed spaces]; agrochemicals used in production; additives used in manufacture; source of ignition [Are matches toxic?]).
   
   However, there is no scientific question about the natural constituents of Nicotiana tabacum. Many are toxic to some degree. There is no scientific question about most of the particulates generated by the combustion of tobacco. Asserting that most or all of the widely published studies (in Science, Nature, New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, and literally hundreds of other scholarly publications) that have spanned a half century are bad science is a bold assertion that would cry out for a knowledgeable rebuttal of the specific flawed methodologies of tens of thousands of highly skilled, highly educated researchers.
   
   
3. Cancer may be considered a relatively rare risk from tobacco. Far more problematic is the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD or emphysema) that results from inhaling any particulates or toxins into the lungs. This happens when you inhale tobacco smoke or diesel exhaust. If you never inhale a cigar, but smoke them an enclosed space, then you inhale those substances. The probability of COPD, to a lesser or greater extent, in a long term inhaler of tobacco smoke approaches 100%. The lung injury is greater when the lung tissue is still growing.
   
   (Buffalo Bird Woman stated that when she was a girl--which would have been in the mid-1800s--only the old men of her Hidatsa tribe smoked tobacco, and that the young men knew that smoking tobacco would reduce their endurance.)
   
   We know that nitrites, used in certain meat curing processes, cause cumulative damage to lung tissue. There are no studies that I'm aware of that also factor in the combined effect of inhaling tobacco smoke. Another confounding factor.
   
   The cardio-vascular risks associated with tobacco use have been difficult to separate from a plethora of confounding factors, not the least of which is its association with lung injury. Penetrating the haze of obesity, diabetes, consumption of carbonated beverages, high fat and salt consumption, and lack of physical exercise leaves this issue unclear.
   
   
4. The anti-tobacco lobby assumes that if smokers knew the risks, they would quit smoking. This is, of course, utterly silly. If, as an adult, you aren't aware that there are health risks associated with tobacco, then there are only two explanations: you are hopelessly isolated, or you have a belief system that encourages denying the preponderance of evidence.
   
   
5. There are some clearly identified benefits of tobacco use, particularly as concerns mood elevation and clarity of thought. (A large class of neuro-receptors is called "nicotinic.") These benefits do not negate the risks. They may simply be weighed against them.
   
   A confounding factor here is that tobacco exposure brings about permanent alterations in the brain (and possibly in the peripheral nervous system). So the mood and mentation effects of tobacco vs. no tobacco likely differ, depending on one's tobacco experience.

I smoke cigars, and I smoke a pipe. Sometimes I smoke them indoors. I recognize the risks. I choose to smoke. When I was younger, I smoked cigarettes as well. In my late forties, I stopped smoking cigarettes, and the improvement in my breathing and stamina were noticeable. Very noticeable.

I guess that my punchline for this post is that it is disingenuous to smoke, while saying the risks are bogus. Look at the risks, and make a choice. My personal choice is to smoke in moderation, and to not inhale any more of the smoke than the outdoor weather compels me to inhale indoors. The risks are real. I accept them.

Bob

 

[CoralReefs]

I have major philosophical issues with many of the comments in this thread. Rather than just say, "Nunh Unh! Here's the real truth," I'll address other issues.

1. First of all, science is not a belief system. Science is a methodology. One might say it's the Missouri approach: Show me.
   
   It's not what I believe or support or wish were true that matters. It is the cumulative weight of evidence that matters.
   
   The underlying precept of the scientific method is one of "best guess," based on the preponderance of repeatable evidence. There is no such thing as scientific truth.

...


Bob

Flawless and brilliant!

 

[Tom_in_TN]

The additives muddy things up a bit and add room for doubt...

Consider any other consumer product, Twinkies for example. If Twinkies contained the sort of additives that are added to Big Tobacco products how long do we think Twinkies would remain legal to purchase and consume?

If one were to take my position on the issue it becomes defend-able because there is an absence of any rigorous, scientific study that proves tobacco leaf, by itself, whether smoked or chewed causes the sort of harm that it is widely believed to cause. Could be a pointless task because as I have already asserted, the "truth" is so deeply embedded it has become part of a belief system. Sort of a game really, the "War on Tobacco". A fun game for highly educated and progressive people to play. Even the politicians are safe to play the game because the 'evil weed' and those who partake of it can be vilified to a very high degree and virtually everyone accepts it, even most tobacco users accept the abuse. However, there is an important point to remember, Big Tobacco's products will always be available and legal. Why? We all know the answer. I am finished supporting entities that put harmful additives in tobacco products. Getting them stop their evil ways would be akin to an Irresistible Force meets an Immovable Object.

My plan is to partake of something that is natural, organic and free from harmful additives.

 

[deluxestogie]

Tom,
Regardless of whether or not you accept the likely risks of tobacco use, I fully agree with your take on the politics of the situation.

Bob

 

[Chicken]

Are their any recent whole leaf or homegrown tobacco smokers who have noticed a decrease in the amount of say cigarettes they smoke a day compared to store bought or natural brand tobaccos pre rolled. I have cut my cigarette consumption by half, although I did take up cigar smoking.

i gotta agree with you,,,,

smoking my homegrown baccy compared to when i bought my ciggs,

i dont smoke near as much cigg's in a day as i did when i bought them?????? odd but true<

 

[Tom_in_TN]

Bob, good post and very well put. A careful reading of my opinion would reveal no admission that smoking or chewing tobacco is totally harmless. I do assert that smoking the products produced by the majors and sold to consumers has a high probability of being harmful because they contain higher than desired levels of additives that are known to be harmful. We have the anecdotal evidence here on this forum of those who have given up commercially produced cigarettes. With regard to the shoddy scientific studies remarks I make, they are aimed at one specific flaw, and it is a fatal flaw, no one has yet been able to point to studies comparing individuals who smoke or chew natural, organic tobacco leaf VERSUS a group who smoke/chew the products produced by the majors. Not sure that has ever been done, or ever will be done. So, it is just a best guess theory that natural, organic tobacco leaf is a high health risk. Some risk? Sure. But, just how much tobacco does one need to smoke to be considered harmful? For myself I could see a 6-7 cigar/day limit as reasonable with limited inhalation and exclusively smoking outdoors.

So, in a topic labeled "The war on Tobacco" it is important to understand the politics. We not only see the mindset of the vast majority of people have been captured by the anti-tobacco crowd but imagine that someone wanted to sell their home-grown tobacco? Or for instance, suppose one wants to sell their tobacco products as a cigar? They make up a nice 100 box batch of great cigars and walk into a local retail tobacco store and proudly claim, "I would like to supply you with some very fine, great tasting cigars. In a blind taste test they were rated the best tasting cigars by a large number of smokers. They contain 100% American grown tobacco that you can sell to your customers at a great price." The retailer answers by saying, "Oh, sorry. We only sell the finest cigars in our shop. A few may have a little bit of American tobacco but not a 100%. Thanks anyway but not interested. Bye!!!" And, as the person turns to walk out the door they spy a box of Dominican Republic made 'dog-turds' ON SALE for $125/box.

 

[driftinmark]

personally , I got into rolling my own because I didnt trust what the "big" tobacco companies are putting in the smokes........I found out a lot of info on the way here, and now on to my journey of actually growing my own as well.....one of my first roll your own tobaccos was kentucky select organic, no pesticides, omly organic ferts and only organic toppings.......

but anyway, this is a long article scroll about half way down, I dont agree with all the politics or even every thing he says here, but he has a LOT to say, lol

enjoy if you dare, lol, its that long

http://www.ryomagazine.com/

 

[SmokeStack]

I always liked the fact that King James put an extremely high tax on it so no one would but it, and published the book "Conterblaste to tobacco". He saw so much money rolling in that he then openly embraced it and allowed the tax coffers to overflow with tobacco tax money.

This is the first year in the state of Michigan that fireworks (at least the good ones) are now legal. The state of Michigan calculated how much money they were losing from Michigan residents' crossing the border into Ohio to buy fireworks. Since the economy in Michigan is devastated, the Michigan congress decided to legalize fireworks and capitalize on taxes. In fact Michigan sales tax is normally 6% but for fireworks it is doubled to 12%. I am starting to think that everything comes down to money.

 

[johnlee1933]

This is the first year in the state of Michigan that fireworks (at least the good ones) are now legal. The state of Michigan calculated how much money they were losing from Michigan residents' crossing the border into Ohio to buy fireworks. Since the economy in Michigan is devastated, the Michigan congress decided to legalize fireworks and capitalize on taxes. In fact Michigan sales tax is normally 6% but for fireworks it is doubled to 12%. I am starting to think that everything comes down to money.

Welcome aboard SS. It is! As long as they can piss away unlimited amounts at the drop of a hat some suckers (us) have to pay the bill. Oh Yeah and it's all "for their own good."

John

 

[BarG]

This is the first year in the state of Michigan that fireworks (at least the good ones) are now legal. The state of Michigan calculated how much money they were losing from Michigan residents' crossing the border into Ohio to buy fireworks. Since the economy in Michigan is devastated, the Michigan congress decided to legalize fireworks and capitalize on taxes. In fact Michigan sales tax is normally 6% but for fireworks it is doubled to 12%. I am starting to think that everything comes down to money.

We couldn't shoot them last year ,practicaly the whole state was under a burn ban. We have fireworks wholesale warehouses open for retail sales as well as the roadside stands. I have 2 within 50 miles. I think I'll have to splurge this year and get the big huge economy packs of grenade launchers and texas bottle rockets.

 

[Grundle]

I have a buddy who builds fireworks....the good kind. We are talking about tubes that are as 6 feet tall.

Here is some of his work

 

[johnlee1933]

WOW !! That had to be a $ 20 grand show. I assume he is a licensed pro?

John

 

[Grundle]

WOW !! That had to be a $ 20 grand show. I assume he is a licensed pro?

John

He is licensed and a "pro", but this is his hobby He did all the baseball games for a long time, but now he is retired and does it for fun.