If so, what brand.
If not, what brand would you choose?
I'm a reformed smoker, and, if I went back it would be what I used to smoke....
Makes me sad looking at them... the good old days!
Smoke B&H 100s myself. Smoked a pipe in college though so when I quit ciggies a few years ago I went back to the pipe.
$70/week for a carton of cigs vs.
$30/month for pound of pipe tobacco.
If you actually enjoy the smoking activity vs just getting your nicotine fix, I highly recommend a 20 or 30 min pipefull vs 2 or 3 min ciggy. Tell your tobacconist you're quitting cigs so need something with some nicotine in it. Expect cig-related dreams first few months but they'll taper off.
I don't even miss smoking anymore. The first year was hard. The 2nd year, I would get impulses now and again, but resisted.
I don't even get tempted anymore. It's like I never smoked.
Isn't that the most beautiful pack of cigarettes ever though?
Same here. I will stop to talk to someone outside smoking at restaurants. Just want to breath in some second hand smoke. Miss it soooo much. Going on three years.
If so, what brand.
If not, what brand would you choose?
I'm a reformed smoker, and, if I went back it would be what I used to smoke....
Makes me sad looking at them... the good old days!
If so, what brand.
If not, what brand would you choose?
I'm a reformed smoker, and, if I went back it would be what I used to smoke....
Makes me sad looking at them... the good old days!
I'm reformed, too, but if smoking tobacco suddenly proved not to cause health problems I would instantly go back to my all-time fave, a long lean mean machine.
It is a MAJOR RISK FACTOR, asshole!!!! Smoking has been proven to be one of the WORST things you can do to yourself. There is a correlative, and many times true causation, between smoking and heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes.If so, what brand.
If not, what brand would you choose?
I'm a reformed smoker, and, if I went back it would be what I used to smoke....
Makes me sad looking at them... the good old days!
I'm reformed, too, but if smoking tobacco suddenly proved not to cause health problems I would instantly go back to my all-time fave, a long lean mean machine.
It adds a risk factor, but it no more causes them than the hundreds of other singular risk factors. No one's ever fallen over dead because they smoked a cigarette. And many that smoked all their lives died from other things.
It is a MAJOR RISK FACTOR, asshole!!!! Smoking has been proven to be one of the WORST things you can do to yourself. There is a correlative, and many times true causation, between smoking and heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes.If so, what brand.
If not, what brand would you choose?
I'm a reformed smoker, and, if I went back it would be what I used to smoke....
Makes me sad looking at them... the good old days!
I'm reformed, too, but if smoking tobacco suddenly proved not to cause health problems I would instantly go back to my all-time fave, a long lean mean machine.
It adds a risk factor, but it no more causes them than the hundreds of other singular risk factors. No one's ever fallen over dead because they smoked a cigarette. And many that smoked all their lives died from other things.
Congratulations, Delta, you are doing a bang up job of proving yourself to be the world's BIGGEST DUMBASS!
Is this a ******* joke or what?!? Surely this guy cannot be for real.
Listen to yourself, asshole. "Only about 40% of people who smoke" develop cancer. Dipshit, that is right at HALF. Hell, it probably is half given the margin of error in these studies.It is a MAJOR RISK FACTOR, asshole!!!! Smoking has been proven to be one of the WORST things you can do to yourself. There is a correlative, and many times true causation, between smoking and heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes.If so, what brand.
If not, what brand would you choose?
I'm a reformed smoker, and, if I went back it would be what I used to smoke....
Makes me sad looking at them... the good old days!
I'm reformed, too, but if smoking tobacco suddenly proved not to cause health problems I would instantly go back to my all-time fave, a long lean mean machine.
It adds a risk factor, but it no more causes them than the hundreds of other singular risk factors. No one's ever fallen over dead because they smoked a cigarette. And many that smoked all their lives died from other things.
Congratulations, Delta, you are doing a bang up job of proving yourself to be the world's BIGGEST DUMBASS!
Is this a ******* joke or what?!? Surely this guy cannot be for real.
No it isn't. The only major risk factor is lots of little risk factors added together. Do you have any idea how many carcinogens are in every day products? Because of that it's impossible to determine which ultimately causes cancer. Coulda been the flame retardant furniture, clothes, or aresols in every home and not the tobacco. It's impossible to determine but smoking's the obvious one not pleasant to be around if not smoking yourself so the one who gets an unfair amount of the blame.
If smoking really caused all the problems that get blamed on it, every smoker should be getting those problems. Yet according to the CDC itself, only about 40% of smokers develop lung cancer. Yet we always hear "smoking causes lung cancer" well if that's true why do less than half of smokers get lung cancer? For something to be described as causing something else, at the very least a majority should develop it.
You're listening to the result of lobbyists and people who wanna control every little facet of your life. Whether you develop a cancer, heart disease, emphasema, or whatever else is the result of your genes much more so than lifestyle factors like smoking.
Listen to yourself, asshole. "Only about 40% of people who smoke" develop cancer. Dipshit, that is right at HALF. Hell, it probably is half given the margin of error in these studies.It is a MAJOR RISK FACTOR, asshole!!!! Smoking has been proven to be one of the WORST things you can do to yourself. There is a correlative, and many times true causation, between smoking and heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes.If so, what brand.
If not, what brand would you choose?
I'm a reformed smoker, and, if I went back it would be what I used to smoke....
Makes me sad looking at them... the good old days!
I'm reformed, too, but if smoking tobacco suddenly proved not to cause health problems I would instantly go back to my all-time fave, a long lean mean machine.
It adds a risk factor, but it no more causes them than the hundreds of other singular risk factors. No one's ever fallen over dead because they smoked a cigarette. And many that smoked all their lives died from other things.
Congratulations, Delta, you are doing a bang up job of proving yourself to be the world's BIGGEST DUMBASS!
Is this a ******* joke or what?!? Surely this guy cannot be for real.
No it isn't. The only major risk factor is lots of little risk factors added together. Do you have any idea how many carcinogens are in every day products? Because of that it's impossible to determine which ultimately causes cancer. Coulda been the flame retardant furniture, clothes, or aresols in every home and not the tobacco. It's impossible to determine but smoking's the obvious one not pleasant to be around if not smoking yourself so the one who gets an unfair amount of the blame.
If smoking really caused all the problems that get blamed on it, every smoker should be getting those problems. Yet according to the CDC itself, only about 40% of smokers develop lung cancer. Yet we always hear "smoking causes lung cancer" well if that's true why do less than half of smokers get lung cancer? For something to be described as causing something else, at the very least a majority should develop it.
You're listening to the result of lobbyists and people who wanna control every little facet of your life. Whether you develop a cancer, heart disease, emphasema, or whatever else is the result of your genes much more so than lifestyle factors like smoking.
Dude, you are NOT a ******* doctor, nor are you even smart. Developing cancer is NOT left to chance. There is a certain element of chance since we do not yet fully understand genetic causation, but you can definitely increase the chance of developing cancer through lifestyle activities, which is what you apparently disagree with. Don't believe me? Go ask a doctor, shithead!
I will take that as a surrender, numb nuts. Though you could be a man and just admit that I am right and you are dumber than ****.Listen to yourself, asshole. "Only about 40% of people who smoke" develop cancer. Dipshit, that is right at HALF. Hell, it probably is half given the margin of error in these studies.It is a MAJOR RISK FACTOR, asshole!!!! Smoking has been proven to be one of the WORST things you can do to yourself. There is a correlative, and many times true causation, between smoking and heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes.I'm reformed, too, but if smoking tobacco suddenly proved not to cause health problems I would instantly go back to my all-time fave, a long lean mean machine.
It adds a risk factor, but it no more causes them than the hundreds of other singular risk factors. No one's ever fallen over dead because they smoked a cigarette. And many that smoked all their lives died from other things.
Congratulations, Delta, you are doing a bang up job of proving yourself to be the world's BIGGEST DUMBASS!
Is this a ******* joke or what?!? Surely this guy cannot be for real.
No it isn't. The only major risk factor is lots of little risk factors added together. Do you have any idea how many carcinogens are in every day products? Because of that it's impossible to determine which ultimately causes cancer. Coulda been the flame retardant furniture, clothes, or aresols in every home and not the tobacco. It's impossible to determine but smoking's the obvious one not pleasant to be around if not smoking yourself so the one who gets an unfair amount of the blame.
If smoking really caused all the problems that get blamed on it, every smoker should be getting those problems. Yet according to the CDC itself, only about 40% of smokers develop lung cancer. Yet we always hear "smoking causes lung cancer" well if that's true why do less than half of smokers get lung cancer? For something to be described as causing something else, at the very least a majority should develop it.
You're listening to the result of lobbyists and people who wanna control every little facet of your life. Whether you develop a cancer, heart disease, emphasema, or whatever else is the result of your genes much more so than lifestyle factors like smoking.
Dude, you are NOT a ******* doctor, nor are you even smart. Developing cancer is NOT left to chance. There is a certain element of chance since we do not yet fully understand genetic causation, but you can definitely increase the chance of developing cancer through lifestyle activities, which is what you apparently disagree with. Don't believe me? Go ask a doctor, shithead!
You obvious immaturity makes you no one to take seriously or listen to. Have fun shouting at the rain.
It is a MAJOR RISK FACTOR, asshole!!!! Smoking has been proven to be one of the WORST things you can do to yourself. There is a correlative, and many times true causation, between smoking and heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes.If so, what brand.
If not, what brand would you choose?
I'm a reformed smoker, and, if I went back it would be what I used to smoke....
Makes me sad looking at them... the good old days!
I'm reformed, too, but if smoking tobacco suddenly proved not to cause health problems I would instantly go back to my all-time fave, a long lean mean machine.
It adds a risk factor, but it no more causes them than the hundreds of other singular risk factors. No one's ever fallen over dead because they smoked a cigarette. And many that smoked all their lives died from other things.
Congratulations, Delta, you are doing a bang up job of proving yourself to be the world's BIGGEST DUMBASS!
Is this a ******* joke or what?!? Surely this guy cannot be for real.
No it isn't. The only major risk factor is lots of little risk factors added together. Do you have any idea how many carcinogens are in every day products? Because of that it's impossible to determine which ultimately causes cancer. Coulda been the flame retardant furniture, clothes, or aresols in every home and not the tobacco. It's impossible to determine but smoking's the obvious one not pleasant to be around if not smoking yourself so the one who gets an unfair amount of the blame.
If smoking really caused all the problems that get blamed on it, every smoker should be getting those problems. Yet according to the CDC itself, only about 40% of smokers develop lung cancer. Yet we always hear "smoking causes lung cancer" well if that's true why do less than half of smokers get lung cancer? For something to be described as causing something else, at the very least a majority should develop it.
You're listening to the result of lobbyists and people who wanna control every little facet of your life. Whether you develop a cancer, heart disease, emphasema, or whatever else is the result of your genes much more so than lifestyle factors like smoking.
View attachment 51585It is a MAJOR RISK FACTOR, asshole!!!! Smoking has been proven to be one of the WORST things you can do to yourself. There is a correlative, and many times true causation, between smoking and heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes.If so, what brand.
If not, what brand would you choose?
I'm a reformed smoker, and, if I went back it would be what I used to smoke....
Makes me sad looking at them... the good old days!
I'm reformed, too, but if smoking tobacco suddenly proved not to cause health problems I would instantly go back to my all-time fave, a long lean mean machine.
It adds a risk factor, but it no more causes them than the hundreds of other singular risk factors. No one's ever fallen over dead because they smoked a cigarette. And many that smoked all their lives died from other things.
Congratulations, Delta, you are doing a bang up job of proving yourself to be the world's BIGGEST DUMBASS!
Is this a ******* joke or what?!? Surely this guy cannot be for real.
No it isn't. The only major risk factor is lots of little risk factors added together. Do you have any idea how many carcinogens are in every day products? Because of that it's impossible to determine which ultimately causes cancer. Coulda been the flame retardant furniture, clothes, or aresols in every home and not the tobacco. It's impossible to determine but smoking's the obvious one not pleasant to be around if not smoking yourself so the one who gets an unfair amount of the blame.
If smoking really caused all the problems that get blamed on it, every smoker should be getting those problems. Yet according to the CDC itself, only about 40% of smokers develop lung cancer. Yet we always hear "smoking causes lung cancer" well if that's true why do less than half of smokers get lung cancer? For something to be described as causing something else, at the very least a majority should develop it.
You're listening to the result of lobbyists and people who wanna control every little facet of your life. Whether you develop a cancer, heart disease, emphasema, or whatever else is the result of your genes much more so than lifestyle factors like smoking.
Used to. I smoked Rothmans.If so, what brand.
If not, what brand would you choose?
I'm a reformed smoker, and, if I went back it would be what I used to smoke....
Makes me sad looking at them... the good old days!
