Health Benefits of Smoking - The REAL Truth

[September]

I used to love smoking weed. I don't smoke or drink anymore, though, except for on special occasions.

I used to have the craziest spirit quests and rituals with LSD, shrooms, and even DMT. Whether it was an epic journey through the desert, an an epic moment atop a mountain staring down upon the world from the Heavens, or a moment alone in a room surrounded by my own renaissance/style paintings of demons and angels, gods and goddesses, demons and deavas and djinn, and stories from Revelations, all manifesting in reality and coming to life....




​

 

[auditor0007]

Great article here debunking many popular smoking myths (like lung cancer rate.)

Smoking s Many Myths Examined

Another good one here,
The 10 Most Deceiving Myths About Smoking Debunked - TheRichest

"6. Smoking Bans are Grassroots Initiatives

It would appear as though the move to ban smoking in bars, restaurants, and nowadays most public places began as a popular movement amongst the people. In fact, the people caught on AFTER the lobbyists did their spin doctoring. With over a billion dollars to spend annually, anti-smoking lobbyists have stuck to a mandate that they decided upon in 1975. At the World Conference on Smoking, lobbyists were told by doctors that in order to eliminate smoking it would be “essential to create an atmosphere in which it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their family and any infants or young children…” With the money lobbyists have to spend, many poorly researched studies have been conducted showing the negative effects on non-smokers that smoking poses, when, even a study in the American Council on Science and Health reported that there was no negligible difference in the overall health pre and post smoking bans.

3. The World Health Organization has even gone so far as to state that the risk of second hand smoke is “either non-existent or too small to be measured at any meaningful level.” That’s a damning indictment of the anti-smoking groups’ reports that claim the contrary.

2. It is estimated that only about 10 percent of all lifelong smokers end up acquiring lung cancer. The amount of smokers who contract other high-risk cancers for smokers, such as cancers of the mouth and throat only adds up to about another 8 percent, and are generally not concurrent with lung cancer. Even in a worst-case scenario, a lifelong smoker has roughly an 82 to 90 percent chance of NOT getting cancer because of cigarettes. So, in reality, if you smoke, even heavily for half a century, your chances of getting cancer, though higher than a non-smoker, is not the exorbitantly high risk anti-smoking campaigns purport."

The Matrix has you, and it's lying to you. Or at least grossly exaggerating.

 

[auditor0007]

Great article here debunking many popular smoking myths (like lung cancer rate.)

Smoking s Many Myths Examined

Another good one here,
The 10 Most Deceiving Myths About Smoking Debunked - TheRichest

"6. Smoking Bans are Grassroots Initiatives

It would appear as though the move to ban smoking in bars, restaurants, and nowadays most public places began as a popular movement amongst the people. In fact, the people caught on AFTER the lobbyists did their spin doctoring. With over a billion dollars to spend annually, anti-smoking lobbyists have stuck to a mandate that they decided upon in 1975. At the World Conference on Smoking, lobbyists were told by doctors that in order to eliminate smoking it would be “essential to create an atmosphere in which it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their family and any infants or young children…” With the money lobbyists have to spend, many poorly researched studies have been conducted showing the negative effects on non-smokers that smoking poses, when, even a study in the American Council on Science and Health reported that there was no negligible difference in the overall health pre and post smoking bans.

3. The World Health Organization has even gone so far as to state that the risk of second hand smoke is “either non-existent or too small to be measured at any meaningful level.” That’s a damning indictment of the anti-smoking groups’ reports that claim the contrary.

2. It is estimated that only about 10 percent of all lifelong smokers end up acquiring lung cancer. The amount of smokers who contract other high-risk cancers for smokers, such as cancers of the mouth and throat only adds up to about another 8 percent, and are generally not concurrent with lung cancer. Even in a worst-case scenario, a lifelong smoker has roughly an 82 to 90 percent chance of NOT getting cancer because of cigarettes. So, in reality, if you smoke, even heavily for half a century, your chances of getting cancer, though higher than a non-smoker, is not the exorbitantly high risk anti-smoking campaigns purport."

The Matrix has you, and it's lying to you. Or at least grossly exaggerating.

Okay, you go with that. Everyone dies. Smokers, on average, die ten years sooner than non-smokers. For a great many of them, their last five to ten years are not even worth living. You forgot to include loss of life due to heart disease caused by smoking. You did not mention emphysema or COPD. But you know what the best thing about smoking is? It makes you smell really bad.

 

[Pop23]

3.28 Health benefits of smoking - Tobacco In Australia

Research shows smoking cigarettes can help protect us from things like (full explanation for each at link)

- Ulcerative colitis
- Parkinson's disease
- Endometrial cancer and uterine fibroids
- Pre-eclampsia (hypertension in pregnancy)
- Cognitive performance
- Psychiatric symptoms
- Thyroid cancer
- Skin cancer

Of course, you're not likely to ever hear about this on those 'truth' commercials.

Does anyone here prefer lung disease?

CDC - Annual Deaths Attributable to Cigarette Smoking - Smoking Tobacco Use

Can get lung disease and cancer from things besides smoking. Because there's so many risk factors in our industrialized society, knowing which was the straw that broke the camel's back is impossible. Many foods cause cancers, the flame retardant chemicals in baby clothes and products do, vehicle exhaust, etc.

You're not eliminating the risk of developing cancer or other maladies if you don't smoke. Only about 10% of smokers develop lung cancer. And despite the impression, you're still gonna die of something unplesant even if you don't smoke.

The aim of singling out tobacco use is I believe the same sorta rationale as is seen in the permissive policy about alcohol while we've banned all the less-harmful or harmless recreational drugs. By demonizing them no one's paying attention to alcohol's effects. Same with smoking, but singling out tobacco, no one's looking at other risk factors like the chemicals in daily products. It's scapegoating, pure and simple.

Sure, smoking's harmful, no one saying it isn't. But so are other thins perhaps even riskier than smoking. But if no one ever heards about them, we're not likely to study them to find out.

You left out Radon. It's estimated exposure to Radon is responsible for 22,000 lung cancer deaths each year

But almost no one has their homes tested

 

[Agit8r]

Ya dude. Cocaine can treat altitude sickness too

 

[I.P.Freely]

A childhood girlfriend of mine has just come home to her brother house from Sicily to die.The lung cancer is quite advanced. To see this once statuesque blue eyed blond looking like a shrivelled hag of twice her age is very hard.
We just sit and talk about the good times whilst waiting for the inevitable.
Her gay brother and his partner are two of the most kind and decent people I know, they both posses a strength of spirit that shames me.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Great article here debunking many popular smoking myths (like lung cancer rate.)

Smoking s Many Myths Examined

Another good one here,
The 10 Most Deceiving Myths About Smoking Debunked - TheRichest

"6. Smoking Bans are Grassroots Initiatives

It would appear as though the move to ban smoking in bars, restaurants, and nowadays most public places began as a popular movement amongst the people. In fact, the people caught on AFTER the lobbyists did their spin doctoring. With over a billion dollars to spend annually, anti-smoking lobbyists have stuck to a mandate that they decided upon in 1975. At the World Conference on Smoking, lobbyists were told by doctors that in order to eliminate smoking it would be “essential to create an atmosphere in which it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their family and any infants or young children…” With the money lobbyists have to spend, many poorly researched studies have been conducted showing the negative effects on non-smokers that smoking poses, when, even a study in the American Council on Science and Health reported that there was no negligible difference in the overall health pre and post smoking bans.

3. The World Health Organization has even gone so far as to state that the risk of second hand smoke is “either non-existent or too small to be measured at any meaningful level.” That’s a damning indictment of the anti-smoking groups’ reports that claim the contrary.

2. It is estimated that only about 10 percent of all lifelong smokers end up acquiring lung cancer. The amount of smokers who contract other high-risk cancers for smokers, such as cancers of the mouth and throat only adds up to about another 8 percent, and are generally not concurrent with lung cancer. Even in a worst-case scenario, a lifelong smoker has roughly an 82 to 90 percent chance of NOT getting cancer because of cigarettes. So, in reality, if you smoke, even heavily for half a century, your chances of getting cancer, though higher than a non-smoker, is not the exorbitantly high risk anti-smoking campaigns purport."

The Matrix has you, and it's lying to you. Or at least grossly exaggerating.

Okay, you go with that. Everyone dies. Smokers, on average, die ten years sooner than non-smokers. For a great many of them, their last five to ten years are not even worth living. You forgot to include loss of life due to heart disease caused by smoking. You did not mention emphysema or COPD. But you know what the best thing about smoking is? It makes you smell really bad.

Not like dying 10 years later makes the dying ok with the person or their family. Still gonna suck, but the smoker at least accepted this reality and thus will handle it better than someone who did everything right but got some terminal condition anyway and feels robbed.

 

[irosie91]

smoking causes an horrific damage to the human body-----I really enjoyed that line "ONLY" 10% of life long smokers get lunch cancer-----"only"-----actually I doubt that the stat is THAT HIGH---- 10% is huge--------------

Oat cell cancer of the lung (the most common form of lung
cancer ) is virtually ALWAYS due to smoking------there are
other forms of lung cancer----must more rare