Will you ever start smoking cigs

never have. never will. personally, i believe that shit is nasty as fuck. people be smellin like straight shit when they smoke cigs. like fermenting, decomposing, nasty ass cow shit lol

 

Had a full Marlboro Red once.... biggest fucking headspin out, headache, felt like vomiting, hell... i'd prefer a bad trip than experiencing that shit again. Whats even worse i took that ciggie before planning to workout! So i didn't even end up working out.

 

that's the only thing in this thread you could find to comment on?

congratulations. all that i said was that i didn't smoke tobacco. never said anything about getting cancer.

stop trolling

 

I smoke when im drunk sometimes just one, i usually just take one from somebody people are always generous when they're drunk. The weird thing is i love the smell of cigarettes but i probably only smoke once every 4-5 months if even that. I just dont get the addiction to it i certainly don't blame people for doing it though. Everybody is going to die you don't have to justify your actions to others have fun bitches. Who knows maybe a bus will get you before the other things do so live it up.

 

this might sound weird but... ive been seeing your posts on the forums regularly for the past month and never would have guessed you were a girl till i read your sig.

 

Fuck no, that shits straight nasty. I've never taken a single hit off one.

 

Okay, people need to educate themselves on tobacco. Organic, non additive tobacco is not as deadly as the media would like you to think. Yes factory made cigarettes that the government wants you to buy will kill you because they do add toxins, they even cut the tobacco with vanilla and chocolate to make it sweeter. But if you get a tar gard, and roll your own organic tobacco, or buy american spirits you will notice a big difference in the smoke. There's no nasty taste left in your mouth if you smoke organic tobacco.

 

The air I breathe is causing cancer, so why not speed up the process?

I don't plan on living a long life, nor do I want to, smoke up, brah!

 

A poster already mentioned this, but it's all about moderation.

My grandmother on my father's side smoked about two packs a day..died from it a few years ago.

Now my grandmother on my mother's side is slowly dying from it as well; she needs a fucking machine just to breathe properly and can't move without breathing heavily. Makes me sad just thinking about it.

I smoke 1, sometimes 2 cigarettes a day. Sometimes I don't smoke any. I find it relaxing, plus you can do it in public. I love having one with a cup of coffee before class, or late at night after finishing class.

Just try not to get heavily addicted and overdo it and you'll be fine.

 

Every year, thousands of medical doctors and other members of the “Anti-Smoking Inquisition” spend billions of dollars perpetuating what has unquestionably become the most misleading though successful social engineering scam in history. With the encouragement of most western governments, these Orwellian lobbyists pursue smokers with a fanatical zeal that completely overshadows the ridiculous American alcohol prohibition debacle, which started in 1919 and lasted until 1933.

Nowadays we look back on American prohibition with justifiable astonishment. Is it really true that an entire nation allowed itself to be denied a beer or scotch by a tiny group of tambourine-bashing fanatics? Sadly, yes it is, despite a total lack of evidence that alcohol causes any harm to humans, unless consumed in truly astronomical quantities.

Alas, the safety of alcohol was of no interest to the tambourine-bashers, for whom control over others was the one and only true goal. Americans were visibly “sinning” by enjoying themselves having a few alcoholic drinks, and the puritans interceded on behalf of God to make them all feel miserable again.

Although there is no direct link between alcohol and tobacco, the history of American prohibition is important, because it helps us understand how a tiny number of zealots managed to control the behavior and lives of tens of millions of people. Nowadays exactly the same thing is happening to smokers, though this time it is at the hands of government zealots and ignorant medical practitioners rather than tambourine-bashing religious fanatics.

Certain governments know that their past actions are directly responsible for causing most of the lung and skin cancers in the world today, so they go to extreme lengths in trying to deflect responsibility and thus financial liability away from themselves, and onto harmless organic tobacco instead. As we will find later in the report, humble organic tobacco has never hurt anyone, and in certain ways can justifiably claim to provide startling health protection.

Not all governments around the world share the same problem. Japan and Greece have the highest numbers of adult cigarette smokers in the world, but the lowest incidence of lung cancer. In direct contrast to this, America, Australia, Russia, and some South Pacific island groups have the lowest numbers of adult cigarette smokers in the world, but the highest incidence of lung cancer. This is clue number-one in unraveling the absurd but entrenched western medical lie that “smoking causes lung cancer.”



The first European contact with tobacco was in 1492, when Columbus and fellow explorer Rodriguo de Jerez saw natives smoking in Cuba. That very same day, de Jerez took his first puff and found it very relaxing, just as the locals had assured him it would be. This was an important occasion, because Rodriguo de Jerez discovered what the Cubans and native Americans had known for many centuries: that cigar and cigarette smoking is not only relaxing, it also cures coughs and other minor ailments. When he returned home, Rodriguo de Jerez proudly lit a cigar in the street, and was promptly arrested and imprisoned for three years by the horrified Spanish Inquisition. De Jerez thus became the first victim of the anti-smoking lobbies.

In less than a century, smoking became a much enjoyed and accepted social habit throughout Europe, with thousands of tons of tobacco being imported from the colonies to meet the increasing demand. A growing number of writers praised tobacco as a universal remedy for mankind’s ills. By the early 20th Century almost one in every two people smoked, but the incidence of lung cancer remained so low that it was almost immeasurable. Then something extraordinary happened on July 16, 1945: a terrifying cataclysmic event that would eventually cause western governments to distort the perception of smoking forever. As K. Greisen recalls:

“When the intensity of the light had diminished, I put away the glass and looked toward the tower directly. At about this time I noticed a blue color surrounding the smoke cloud. Then someone shouted that we should observe the shock wave travelling along the ground. The appearance of this was a brightly lighted circular area, near the ground, slowly spreading out towards us. The color was yellow.

“The permanence of the smoke cloud was one thing that surprised me. After the first rapid explosion, the lower part of the cloud seemed to assume a fixed shape and to remain hanging motionless in the air. The upper part meanwhile continued to rise, so that after a few minutes it was at least five miles high. It slowly assumed a zigzag shape because of the changing wind velocity at different altitudes. The smoke had pierced a cloud early in its ascent, and seemed to be completely unaffected by the cloud.”

This was the notorious “Trinity Test”, the first dirty nuclear weapon to be detonated in the atmosphere. A six-kilogram sphere of plutonium, compressed to supercriticality by explosive lenses, Trinity exploded over New Mexico with a force equal to approximately 20,000 tons of TNT. Within seconds, billions of deadly radioactive particles were sucked into the atmosphere to an altitude of six miles, where high-speed jet streams could circulate them far and wide.

The American Government knew about the radiation in advance, was well aware of its lethal effects on humans, but bluntly ordered the test with a complete disregard for health and welfare. In law, this was culpable gross negligence, but the American Government did not care. Sooner or later, one way or the other, they would find another culprit for any long-term effects suffered by Americans and other citizens in local and more remote areas.

If a single microscopic radioactive fallout particle lands on your skin at the beach, you get skin cancer. Inhale a single particle of the same lethal muck, and death from lung cancer becomes inevitable, unless you happen to be an exceptionally lucky cigarette smoker. The solid microscopic radioactive particle buries itself deep in the lung tissue, completely overwhelms the body’s limited reserves of vitamin B17, and causes rampant uncontrollable cell multiplication.

How can we be absolutely sure that radioactive fallout particles really cause lung cancer every time a subject is internally exposed? For real scientists, as opposed to medical quacks and government propagandists, this is not a problem. For any theory to be accepted scientifically, it must first be proven in accordance with rigorous requirements universally agreed by scientists. First the suspect radioactive agent must be isolated, then used in properly controlled laboratory experiments to produce the claimed result, i.e. lung cancer in mammals.

Scientists have ruthlessly sacrificed tens of thousands of mice and rats in this way over the years, deliberately subjecting their lungs to radioactive matter. The documented scientific results of these various experiments are identical. Every mouse or rat obediently contracts lung cancer, and every mouse or rat then dies. Theory has thus been converted to hard scientific fact under tightly controlled laboratory conditions. The suspect agent (radioactive matter) caused the claimed result (lung cancer) when inhaled by mammals.



The overall magnitude of lung cancer risk to humans from atmospheric radioactive fallout cannot be overstated. Before Russia, Britain and America outlawed atmospheric testing on August 5, 1963, more than 4,200 kilograms of plutonium had been discharged into the atmosphere. Because we know that less than one microgram [millionth of a single gram] of inhaled plutonium causes terminal lung cancer in a human, we therefore know that your friendly government has lofted 4,200,000,000 [4.2 Billion] lethal doses into the atmosphere, with particle radioactive half-life a minimum of 50,000 years. Frightening? Unfortunately it gets worse.

The plutonium mentioned above exists in the actual nuclear weapon before detonation, but by far the greatest number of deadly radioactive particles are those derived from common dirt or sand sucked up from the ground, and irradiated while travelling vertically through the weapon’s fireball. These particles form by far the largest part of the “smoke” in any photo of an atmospheric nuclear detonation. In most cases several tons of material are sucked up and permanently irradiated in transit, but let us be incredibly conservative and claim that only 1,000 kilograms of surface material is sucked up by each individual atmospheric nuclear test.

Before being banned by Russia, Britain and America, a total of 711 atmospheric nuclear tests were conducted, thereby creating 711,000 kilograms of deadly microscopic radioactive particles, to which must be added the original 4,200 kilograms from the weapons themselves, for a gross though very conservative total of 715,200 kilograms. There are more than a million lethal doses per kilogram, meaning that your governments have contaminated your atmosphere with more than 715,000,000,000 [715 Billion] such doses, enough to cause lung or skin cancer 117 times in every man, woman and child on earth.

Before you ask, no, the radioactive particles do not just “fade away”, at least not in your lifetime or that of your children and grandchildren. With a half-life of 50,000 years or longer, these countless trillions of deadly government-manufactured radioactive particles are essentially with you forever. Circulated around the world by powerful jet streams, these particles are deposited at random, though in higher concentrations within a couple of thousand miles of the original test sites. A simple wind or other surface disturbance is all that is needed to stir them up again and create enhanced dangers for those in the vicinity.

The once-innocent activity of playfully kicking sand around on the beach in summer could nowadays easily translate to suicide, if you happen to stir up a few radioactive particles that could stick to your skin or be inhaled into your lungs. Stop poking fun at Michael Jackson when he appears at your local airport wearing a surgical mask over his nose and mouth. He may look eccentric, but Michael will almost certainly outlive most of us.



Twelve years after the cataclysmic Trinity test, it became obvious to western governments that things were getting completely out of control, with a 1957 British Medical Research Council report stating that global “deaths from lung cancer have more than doubled during the period 1945 to 1955”, though no explanation was offered. During the same ten-year period, cancer deaths in the immediate proximity of Hiroshima and Nagasaki went up threefold. By the end of official atmospheric testing in 1963, the incidence of lung cancer in the Pacific Islands had increased fivefold since 1945. Having screwed your environment completely for 50,000 years, it was time for “big government” to start taking heavy diversionary action.

How could people be proved to be causing themselves to contract lung cancer, i.e. be said to be guilty of a self inflicted injury for which government could never be blamed or sued? The only obvious substance that people inhaled into their lungs, apart from air, was tobacco smoke, so the government boot was put in. Poorly qualified medical “researchers” suddenly found themselves overwhelmed with massive government grants all aimed at achieving the same end-result: “Prove that smoking causes lung cancer”. Real scientists [especially some notable nuclear physicists] smiled grimly at the early pathetic efforts of the fledgling anti-smoking lobby, and lured them into the deadliest trap of all. The quasi medical researchers were invited to prove their false claims under exactly the same rigid scientific rules that were used when proving that radioactive particles cause lung cancer in mammals.

Remember, for any theory to be accepted scientifically, it must first be proven in accordance with rigorous requirements universally agreed by scientists. First the suspect agent [tobacco smoke] must be isolated, then used in properly controlled laboratory experiments to produce the claimed result, i.e. lung cancer in mammals. Despite exposing literally tens of thousands of especially vulnerable mice and rats to the equivalent of 200 cigarettes per day for years on end, “medical science” has never once managed to induce lung cancer in any mouse or rat. Yes, you did read that correctly. For more than forty years, hundreds of thousands of medical doctors have been deliberately lying to you.

The real scientists had the quasi medical researchers by the throat, because “pairing” the deadly radioactive particle experiment with the benign tobacco smoke experiment, proved conclusively for all time that smoking cannot under any circumstances cause lung cancer. And further, in one large “accidental” experiment they were never allowed to publish, the real scientists proved with startling clarity that smoking actually helps to protect against lung cancer.

All mice and rats are used one-time-only in a specific experiment, and then destroyed. In this way researchers ensure that the results of whatever substance they are testing cannot be accidentally “contaminated” by the real or imagined effects of another substance. Then one day as if by magic, a few thousand mice from the smoking experiment “accidentally” found their way into the radioactive particle experiment, which in the past had killed every single one of its unfortunate test subjects. But this time, completely against the odds, sixty percent of the smoking mice survived exposure to the radioactive particles. The only variable was their prior exposure to copious quantities of tobacco smoke.


'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.' Vishnu, Bhagavad-Gita

Government pressure was immediately brought to bear and the facts suppressed, but this did not completely silence the real scientists. Tongue in cheek perhaps, Professor Schrauzer, President of the International Association of Bio-inorganic Chemists, testified before a U.S. congressional committee in 1982 that it had long been well known to scientists that certain constituents of tobacco smoke act as anti-carcinogens [anti-cancer agents] in test animals. He continued that when known carcinogens [cancer causing substances] are applied to the animals, the application of constituents of cigarette smoke counter them.

Nor did Professor Schrauzer stop there. He further testified on oath to the committee that “no ingredient of cigarette smoke has been shown to cause human lung cancer”, adding that “no-one has been able to produce lung cancer in laboratory animals from smoking.” It was a neat answer to a rather perplexing problem. If government blocks publication of your scientific paper, take the alternate route and put the essential facts on the written congressional record!

Predictably, this hard truth drove the government and quasi medical “researchers” into a frenzy of rage. By 1982 they had actually started to believe their own ridiculous propaganda, and were not to be silenced by eminent members of the scientific establishment. Quite suddenly they switched the blame to other “secret” ingredients put into cigarettes by the tobacco companies. “Yes, that must be it!” they clamored eagerly, until a handful of scientists got on the phone and pointed out that these same “secret” ingredients had been included in the mice experiments, and had therefore also been proved incapable of causing lung cancer.

Things were looking desperate for government and the medical community overall. Since the anti-smoking funding had started in the early sixties, tens of thousands of medical doctors had passed through medical school, where they had been taught that smoking causes lung cancer. Most believed the lie, but cracks were starting to appear in the paintwork. Even the dullest of straight “C” doctors could not really make the data correlate, and when they queried it were told not to ask stupid questions. “Smoking causes lung cancer” converted to a creed, a quasi religious belief mechanism where blind faith became a substitute for proof.

Even blind faith needs a system of positive reinforcement, which in this case became the advertising agencies and the media. Suddenly the television screens were flooded with images of terribly blackened “smoker’s lungs”, with the accompanying mantra that you will die in horrible agony if you don’t quit now. It was all pathetic rubbish of course. On the mortuary slab the lungs of a smoker and non-smoker look an identical pink, and the only way a forensic pathologist can tell you might have been a smoker, is if he finds heavy stains of nicotine on your fingers, a packet of Camels or Marlboro in your coat pocket, or if one of your relatives unwisely admits on the record that you once smoked the demon weed.



The black lungs? From a coal miner, who throughout his working life breathed in copious quantities of microscopic black coal dust particles. Just like radioactive particles they get caught deep in the tissue of the lungs and stay there forever. If you worked down the coal mines for twenty or more years without a face mask, your lungs will probably look like this on the slab.

Many people ask exactly how it is that those smoking mice were protected from deadly radioactive particles, and even more are asking why real figures nowadays are showing far more non-smokers dying from lung cancer than smokers. Professor Sterling of the Simon Fraser University in Canada is perhaps closest to the truth, where he uses research papers to reason that smoking promotes the formation of a thin mucous layer in the lungs, “which forms a protective layer stopping any cancer-carrying particles from entering the lung tissue.”

This is probably as close as we can get to the truth at present, and it does make perfect scientific sense. Deadly radioactive particles inhaled by a smoker would initially be trapped by the mucous layer, and then be ejected from the body before they could enter the tissue.

All of this may be a bit depressing for non-smokers, but there are probably one or two things you can do to minimize the risks as far as possible. Rather than shy away from smokers in your local pub or club, get as close as you can and breathe in their expensive second-hand smoke. Go on, don’t be shy, suck in a few giant breaths. Or perhaps you could smoke one cigarette or small cigar after each meal, just three a day to build up a thin boundary mucous layer. If you cannot or will not do either of the above, consider phoning Michael Jackson to ask for a spare surgical mask!

Copyright Joe Vialls. 16 July 2003

 

I've smoked cigs for a long time but now I've basically quit.
I smoke less than a pack a week, some days I don't even have a cig.

 

Fuck no that's plain stupid

 

The Surgeon General Lies About Cancer

Also read the above article if you have the time. It's a must read.. and I have this for you guys as well..

Nicotine is an Anti-inflammatory Cure for H1N1 Flu Virus

Art Ayers
General Medecine Suite 101
Mon, 04 May 2009 15:52 CDT
http://art-ayers.suite101.com/nicotine-antiinflammatory-h1n1-cure-a114895

© PascaleBovet.com
Vagus Nerve Stimulation Blocks Cytokine Storm of Swine Flu

Nicotine has an anti-inflammatory effect via the vagus nerve, which is useful against many diseases, and perhaps may block the cytokine storm of the H1N1 swine flu.

Nicotine stimulates the cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathway. At the end of this pathway are immune cells that produce anti-inflammatory cytokines that block inflammation. Thus, nicotine, although one of the most addictive chemicals, can have beneficial effects on inflammatory diseases, such as arthritis, asthma, cancer, inflammatory bowel diseases and perhaps, H1N1.

Tobacco Smoke Is Toxic but also Anti-Inflammatory

Paradoxically tobacco smoke contains hundreds of toxic and carcinogenic chemicals that produce inflammatory reactions and numerous degenerative diseases, but it also contains nicotine that is anti-inflammatory. Smokers assault their bodies, but moderate and obscure the inflammatory degeneration and disease, until they stop the nicotine exposure.

Nicotine Withdrawal Is Inflammatory

The anti-inflammatory benefits of nicotine reveal the inflammatory basis of many unexpected diseases. Nicotine withdrawal is severe, partly because it leads to rebound release of inflammatory cytokines, inflammation and inflammatory disease symptoms that include depression and obesity. Smoking cessation may contribute to more severe symptoms of H1N1 infections.

Nicotine Acts via the Vagus Nerve

Attempts to augment bypass surgery for weight reduction have encountered the anti-inflammatory benefits of stimulating the vagus nerve. Vagus nerve stimulation via an electrode attached to the left branch in the neck by a device implanted behind the clavicle, reduces inflammatory cytokine production and is an effective treatment for obesity. Other types of vagus stimulation are being tested for efficacy in treatment of numerous inflammatory diseases, including arthritis, allergy, asthma, Alzheimer's, etc.

Nicotine Blocks Cytokine Storms

Cytokine storms are a deadly consequence of inflammation that is out of control. These exaggerated host responses are targets for bioterrorism, because it takes very little toxin or a very minimal infection to be lethal, if it produces a cytokine storm. In mice, the ricin toxin, a bioterrorism agent, induces a cytokine storm that kills by multiple organ failure. Ricin-treated mice can be protected by nicotine prior or after the cytokine storm begins.

H1N1 May Kill by Cytokine Storm Similar to Spanish Flu of 1918

The rapid high temperature produced by Mexican H1N1 suggest that some of the deaths have resulted from cytokine storms. As more information becomes available on existing cases, it will become more clear how similar the current H1N1 strain is to the virus that caused the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918.

Block H1N1 Cytokine Storms with Nicotine

It may be possible to reduce lethality by blocking the cytokine storm with nicotine. There are numerous means of administering nicotine and research will need to be done to determine which if any of these approaches is effective in the treatment of severe cases of the current H1N1 flu. Smoking as a source of nicotine is probably unwise, because the other toxic components compromise the immune system and make it more vulnerable to flu infection.

Additional information on H1N1 virulence evolution in response to use of antiviral drugs and isolation is available here.

References:

Mabley JG, Pacher P, Szabo C. 'Activation of the cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathway reduces ricin-induced mortality and organ failure in mice'. Mol Med. 2009 Feb 11. [Epub ahead of print]

Gwilt CR, Donnelly LE, Rogers DF. 'The non-neuronal cholinergic system in the airways: an unappreciated regulatory role in pulmonary inflammation?' Pharmacol Ther. 2007 Aug;115(2):208-22.

Johnston GR, Webster NR. 'Cytokines and the immunomodulatory function of the vagus nerve.' Br J Anaesth. 2009 Apr;102(4):453-62.

 

I assume you have to smoke tobacco for a while to feel the effects of it. Since it's suppose to be addictive I suppose the "high" from it is when you get that dose of it in you after you craved it for so long which makes it so addicting.

I personally smoked 1 cig, nasty as fuck, hard to smoke. Just shit.

 

I love Marlboro Reds.

 

www.data-yard.net

 

I used to believe that smoking was bad. After all, smoke from house fires causes lung damage. But then I read "The cosmic serpent". Jeremy Narby goes to the Amazon to spend time with tribes there, learning from the medicine men. A lot of them would do healing with tobacco, and not only did they smoke huge amounts, but they'd eat it, it was part of their training. They'd keep eating it to build tolerance to the poisonous effects of tobacco and use it to heal. They'd smoke huge amounts, and he asked how long they lived, most lived up to the age of ninety or a hundred. That alone made me do my own research into it.

I came to the conclusion that what causes lung cancer with cigarette smokers is the phosphorous fertilliser used on commercial tobacco plantations. This phosphorous is naturally slightly radioactive because of the other isotopes in the mine seams are radioactive. The tobacco plant concentrates this in it, and each time someone inhales, they get a small dose of ionising radiation (compared to the less severe non ionising radiation that microwaves, lightbulbs, sunlight, heat from a radiator emit.)

It could be all the damn additives they add to cigarettes to keep them lit and make them more addictive.

 

Dude I feel you.

Thats why i fully support buying roll it yourself tobacco or growing your own tobacco. it is actually kind of healthier to do that lol.

Not saying tobacco is good for you or anything, but sure does alot less damage when the only thing your smoking is tobacco and not 100 other things.

On topic: I already smoke cigs lol, dont smoke that much, about 0-3 cigs a day.

 

Only thing in my lungs is straight green, Cigs don't get you high maybe a buzz and it ain't healthy plus it doesn't give you all that good shit that Weed does.

 

yes i plan on quiting im trying now i spent years saying i wount smoke one because i knew i would get addicted i smoked my first one around 17/18 cause my ex smoked started smoking after getting high once and a while eventualy smoked more im at a pack a week which isnt too bad but im starting to acualy quit the key is never to buy a pack mabye bum one for a special ocasion or just offer a buck for one from someone if u wanna try it