Re: gluten-free vs. grain-free: smoking and cancer

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:10:41 -0700

Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...> wrote:

>

> >> At this point everyone has to make their own decisions. And shoot,

> >> even if they PROVED wheat causes cancer etc., people will still eat it ...

> >> look at smoking. I just won't feed it to MY family (OK, I admit it,

> >> I don't buy them cigarettes either. Or factory farmed meat if I can

> >> help it).

> >

> >Just curious, what proof is there that smoking causes cancer?

> >

> >

>

> You know, I used to get into that debate with my ex-MIT ... she

> died of lung cancer about 10 years ago.

Mmm...hmmm and I had a meat eating friend die of cancer about 10 years

ago, lol! In fact the several folks I know of who have died of lung

cancer didn't smoke at all! Must have been the meat ;-)

Surely you are not offering this as proof :-) What did your friend eat?

What kind of lifestyle did she live? What did she smoke? American made

cigarettes or the imported variety? Cigars? A pipe?

The above statement is highly prejudicial (my friend smoked, argued in

favor of it, but died of cancer anyway) meaning apt to touch an

emotional button or two but it hardly suffices as evidence.

>Most of the Marlborough

> men died of lung cancer too, I've heard.

I wonder if its true. Do you have something other than " I've heard " ?

However it is true that most American made cigarettes are problematic in

a way that other cigarettes are not. But that doesn't necessarily speak

to the issue of whether *smoking tobacco* causes cancer. Clearly there

are some other variables at work as I noted in a long ago post.

Call it a major coincidence if you want ...

> or it could be the additives in the cigarettes (many of which are

> considered carcinogens or outright toxins, I don't have the list

> handy but it's pretty amazing what they add!).

Yes it is quite amazing what they add, which should give pause to anyone

who wants to suggest that it is tobacco per se that *causes* the problem.

History and science just don't seem to bear that out.

Anyway, of the folks

> I've known who smoked, a high percentage did in fact die of cancer,

> mainly lung and larynx, while none of the non-smokers have. Which

> is proof enough for me. Emphysema is a horrid way to go too, if you've

> watched anyone die of it.

Hmmm...well that is not the kind of proof I'm looking for, in fact that

is not really proof at all although obviously it works for you. And it

still leaves open the question that I asked above, what did they smoke

and what kind of lifestyle did they live?

You yourself have already given a possible answer above and below, so in

the spirit of truthful inquiry, how is what you state above is proof? People

against meat eating argue like this all the time.

> My grandad smoked hough and didn't die of lung cancer ... he hand-rolled his.

> He believed the problem was the additives, and he may have been right.

> However it is also true that when you hand-roll them, you can't smoke near

> as many.

So then why isn't your grandpa's experience proof that smoking

*doesn't* cause cancer? You have drawn and implied a qualitative

difference between what your grandpa did and what your other friends who

died of cancer did. If that is true then why say as you did above:

" Anyway, of the folks

I've known who smoked, a high percentage did in fact die of cancer,

mainly lung and larynx, while none of the non-smokers have. Which

is proof enough for me. "

It seems the best you could say is that " if I were to smoke or any of my

family and friends wanted to smoke, I would encourage them to do it my

grandpa's way. Because the crap my friends were smoking apparently did

them in. "

>

> http://www.tobacco-facts.info/

>

> Studies indicate that nonsmokers are also adversely affected by environmental

>tobacco smoke. There are 4000 chemicals in tobacco with 100 identified

>poisons and 63 known drugs which cause cancer. The most talked about

>drug in tobacco is nicotine. Nicotine is vasoconstrictor and a nerve

>toxin, it has been classified as a class I insecticide. Other poisons

>include: Arsenic, Cyanide, Formaldehyde (used to embalm bodies),

>Ammonia Bromide (a toilet cleaner )- Ref. 1. Each year, because of

>exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, an estimated 3,000 nonsmoking

>Americans die of lung cancer, and 300,000 children suffer from lower

>respiratory tract infections.

The standard line, wrong on a number of counts.

1. Second hand smoke studies have been shown to be false

2. There are chemicals in everything. Without knowing what they are

specifically referring to I will remain skeptical. Something which is

toxic at a high level doesn't necessarily mean its toxic at low levels.

3. Nicotine can be healthful as your own comments point out below.

There is also a difference in the way the tobacco is processed that

affects the concentration of nicotine. Flue curing concentrates the

nicotine whereas air curing does not.

4. Pipe and cigar smokers outlive non-smokers just as moderate drinkers

outlive teetotalers and drunkards. So to lump all tobacco smokers into

one group without accounting for the type of tobacco is misleading.

5. One medical researcher has shown that smoking up to 10 cigarettes a

day of any brand is not harmful with a proper diet.

6. Most studies never seem to want to draw a distinction between

nicotine which naturally occurs in the plant, and all the crap that is

added during processing of *American* made cigarettes and very cheap

machine made cigars.

> Seems like folks that chew tobacco get more cancers of the lip

> though, which would seem to indicate a connection between

> the tobacco plant and cancer. Or maybe it is just that they also

> had amalgam fillings and ate wheat.

LOL! Probably the latter. On the other hand, most chewing tobacco is

LOADED with additives, just like American made cigarettes. So again the

connection between cancer and tobacco is not obvious.

> Nicotine, however, has many good effects, and they are working

> on a post-cursor of nicotine that will have the good effects without

> the side effects. Nicotine turns into another chemical in the body

> that is fairly harmless but has good effects on various mental

> problems.

No need to wait for some new product. All one needs to do is smoke

hand rolled cigars (which don't have all the additives and the tobacco

is air cured), or english tobacco in their pipes (again no additives and

air cured) or roll their own cigarettes with good tobacco (no additives,

air cured) and good paper (yes, the paper is loaded with additives as

well.)

Then they can get the benefits of nicotine without all the side effects

of the additives.

> But given the incredible slew of information against tobacco, I'd

> say the burden of proof at this point is on the person who thinks

> smoking *doesn't* cause cancer.

Well you didn't really offer any proof, and given your own socio-dynamic

with smokers who are no longer amongst us, maybe it isn't a fair

question for you.

But it seems to me that this smacks of the same kind of bad rap that

cholesterol has received, and red meat eating, and fat, and the other

politically incorrect type of nutrition promoted among WAPers. And all

the politically correct diatribes against our way of eating has a slew

of information backing it, so just because there is a slew of " info " against

tobacco doesn't change the burden of proof, given that smoking IS a

traditional practice.

In other words there is a LONG tradition of smoking where people did not

come down with lung cancers. And there is much in the scientific

literature that confirms that tradition. I say the burden of proof lies

with the " moderns " who never fail to tell us that " smoking causes lung cancer. "

" In the same WSJ article, there is an interesting quote from Neil E.

Caporaso, a researcher at the government-owned National Cancer Institute

in Bethesda, MD. According to Mr. Caporaso, one out of eight smokers

will be stricken with lung cancer (which is another way of saying that

seven out of eight will not). Considering the fact that one out of every

five Americans dies from some form of cancer, and that lung cancer is

the most common form of cancer in persons between the ages of 45 and 74,

and the second commonest form in persons over that age, Mr. Caporaso's

estimate of the risk seems very modest and wholly at variance with the

position taken by most government scientists, who shriek hysterically

that smoking " causes " lung cancer. "

and:

" Before leaving this subject of risk, a very interesting study was

recently reported, which confirms that if there is a risk, it has been

grossly exaggerated by the anti-smoking movement.

On May 23, 1995, the Associated Press reported on a study made by Dr.

Strauss. Strauss analyzed 685 lung cancer patients seen at Brigham

and Women's hospital in Boston between 1988 and 1994. He found that 59%

of the patients were non-smokers at the time their cancers were

diagnosed. Of these, 8% of the entire sample had never smoked; 51% had

smoked at one time but had given it up. Of the 51% who had quit, nearly

one fourth had been off cigarettes for more than 20 years. On average,

the former smokers had been off cigarettes for six years.

As I have previously pointed out, lung cancer is not always diagnosed in

non-smokers, because doctors aren't looking for it. Currently, according

to the CDC, 25% of the population are smokers. In the study years

(1988-1994), the percentage was as high as 30%. Thus, purely on the

basis of demography, we would expect between 25 and 30% of the sufferers

from lung cancer, or for that matter, hangnails or acne, to be current

smokers. 41% of the cases studied by Strauss were current smokers.

Given the role of detection bias (doctors more likely to diagnose lung

cancer in smokers than non-smokers), the 41% figure suggests that the

lung cancer risk for current smokers may be little or no greater than

for non-smokers.

In the article, Dr. Burns of the University of California, seems

to support the view that giving up smoking is not the " cure " for lung

cancer. He is quoted as saying, " These folks have done what we told them

to do, yet they are still at substantially increased risk. What can we

do for them? We owe these people an answer. "

Burns suggested that it may be possible to device a genetic test to spot

lung cancer. I would go further and suggest a genetic test to spot the

likelihood that somebody will get lung cancer. Whether, in such an

individual, giving up smoking would do any good, I don't know, but such

individuals probably would choose not to smoke, just as I choose not to

eat starches and sugars.

The same article also reports that deaths from lung cancer have

increased by 51% between 1980 and 1994, despite a drop in the percentage

of adults who smoke from 42% in 1965, to 25% in 1993. Isn't it about

time to stop blindly adhering to the notion that lung cancer will

disappear if people simply give up smoking? "

http://www.lcolby.com/b-chap10.htm

War, the God That Failed

http://tinyurl.com/2npch

" They told just the same,

That just because a tyrant has the might

By force of arms to murder men downright

And burn down house and home and leave all flat

They call the man a captain, just for that.

But since an outlaw with his little band

Cannot bring half such mischief on the land

Or be the cause of so much harm and grief,

He only earns the title of a thief. "

--Geoffrey Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale

[Guest guest]

Heidi wrote:

> My grandad smoked hough and didn't die of lung cancer ... he hand-rolled

his.

> He believed the problem was the additives, and he may have been right.

> However it is also true that when you hand-roll them, you can't smoke near

> as many.

I hand-rolled mine for a time, and I'm not so sure this is true. But it is

true that people who smoke additive-free tobacco seem to smoke a lot less.

I've never had anyone say otherwise from their personal experience, and mine

bears it out. When I switched to American Spirits as a teenager, I smoked about

30% fewer cigarettes. And they aren't hand-rolled... so I think there are

additives that have short-term addictive qualities. I mean that they make you

want/need a cigarette sooner.

Unless there is something compelling the person, it doesn't follow that

someone who smokes would smoke all the time, all day long.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/25/04 5:16:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

slethnobotanist@... writes:

On May 23, 1995, the Associated Press reported on a study made by Dr.

Strauss. Strauss analyzed 685 lung cancer patients seen at Brigham

and Women's hospital in Boston between 1988 and 1994. He found that 59%

of the patients were non-smokers at the time their cancers were

diagnosed. Of these, 8% of the entire sample had never smoked; 51% had

smoked at one time but had given it up. Of the 51% who had quit, nearly

one fourth had been off cigarettes for more than 20 years. On average,

the former smokers had been off cigarettes for six years.

An interesting point to be made here: smokers are 8 times less likely to have

some kind of gut cancer (I forget exactly what type). But former smokers

have a higher risk than people who have never smoked.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/25/04 8:56:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

dpdgr@... writes:

Any recommendation for good hand rolling tobacco and good paper? TIA

Hi Dedy,

American Spirits makes both rolling tobacco and pre-rolled " regular "

cigarettes. I believe their webisite says the tobacco is traditionally air

cured in

barns, and it is all additive free. What's more, it's grown naturally without

chemicals, etc. They even sell an organic version of their tobacco. It would

be easier to purchase their regular cigarettes, but if you like rolling, or

want to save money, you could get the rolling tobacco. I don't remember their

URL, but you would find it easily by googling it and it's probably something

like americanspirits.com.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 5:09:09 EDT

dan@... wrote:

> > Dr. s the author of " The Milk Book " has a book he

> > wrote titled " The Health Benefits of Tobacco " for sale on his web site.

> > http://www.drdouglass.com/Books/smokersparadox/index.htm

> >

> > regards, Bruce (EX smoker)

>

> Bruce,

>

> Thanks for the info on the book! After getting involved with the WAPF, I

suspected

tobacco got a bad rap, like saturated fats, red meat, etc, etc. One time I was

in Whole

Foods and I asked if they had American Spirit natural cigarettes (for a friend),

the employees

looked at me in horror - they would NEVER sell cigarettes at Whole Foods. But

they have

no problem selling beer, wine, soy, processed foods, etc.

>

> Dan

Dan,

You might want this book out as well. Available for free online or as a PDF

download:

In Defense of Smokers

http://www.lcolby.com/

By the way, I wouldn't put beer and wine in the same category as processed foods

(by which I take it you

mean junk type foods) or soy.

War, the God That Failed

http://tinyurl.com/2npch

" They told just the same,

That just because a tyrant has the might

By force of arms to murder men downright

And burn down house and home and leave all flat

They call the man a captain, just for that.

But since an outlaw with his little band

Cannot bring half such mischief on the land

Or be the cause of so much harm and grief,

He only earns the title of a thief. "

--Geoffrey Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/25/04 9:39:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

But when I said " I don't

buy my kids cigarettes " it was a generic statement, meaning the

kind of cigarettes they sell around here, which I think even you

would agree are trash.

I'm sure some of the stores in your area sell good tobacco. Around here,

maybe 1 out of every 5 stores sells American Spirits.

<<<<Yes, I could have had a disclaimer, tho it wasn't the topic of the

original

post, just a side example. I have said things like that though in the past.

Grandpa didn't smoke a *lot* either ... he said that since his cigarettes

didn't stay lit (no gunpowder in them) he couldn't smoke very many,

he had to sit and *smoke* as a dedicated act. >>>>

American Spirits stay lit in general, but if they are resting in an ash tray

or something with no breeze, or if you aren't waving your hand around and you

don't smoke it for a couple minutes, they usually go out.

The " additive-free tobacco " in Winstons were never like that when I tried

them, so I always wondered if it was only the *tobacco* that Winston made

additive free, while they continued to load the *paper* full of accelerants.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>Surely you are not offering this as proof :-) What did your friend eat?

>What kind of lifestyle did she live? What did she smoke? American made

>cigarettes or the imported variety? Cigars? A pipe?

>

>The above statement is highly prejudicial (my friend smoked, argued in

>favor of it, but died of cancer anyway) meaning apt to touch an

>emotional button or two but it hardly suffices as evidence.

Well, of course it is prejudicial. Again, in my original statement, I

was talking about what I choose for my family ... I do not like

cigarettes, they don't get along with me, etc. But when I said " I don't

buy my kids cigarettes " it was a generic statement, meaning the

kind of cigarettes they sell around here, which I think even you

would agree are trash. All the people (except my grandfather)

I've met who smoke, smoke regular trashy cigarettes, so I guess

I wouldn't think to make a disclaimer.

I haven't studied the science a lot, because I haven't needed to.

To me, the *aesthetics* of smoking are enough to make it

a non-starter. The fact I get blurry eyed and coughy around

smoke are a second reason, then I can add the fact it costs

money ... so there is no reason to add it to my life. And while

I don't mind the fact that my kitchen smells like garlic, cigarette

smoke really bugs me as an odor additive.

And when you get into studies, I don't think anyone has

studied native tobacco etc. because there aren't enough

people smoking it. Marijuana seems to cause some lung

damage though, if you smoke enough of it, and the smoke

from my smoker sure bothers my lungs (organic though it is)

so I don't see the advantage of inhaling smoke particles in

general.

If you enjoy inhaling smoke particles though, by all means do

so! I do smoke my meat, which I'm sure some folks would

disagree with also.

Anyway, if someone wants to make a scientific study of

tobacco minus the additives, they can extract some of the

tar it produces and paint some on a mouse's back and see

what happens. Pure tobacco does have some potent stuff in

it, it's good for getting rid of garden pests, but I'm not going

to argue one way or another unless someone does some

studies on it.

>You yourself have already given a possible answer above and below, so in

>the spirit of truthful inquiry, how is what you state above is proof? People

>against meat eating argue like this all the time.

Like I said, I'm not really trying to prove anything. I said I wouldn't give

them to my kids (and it was in comparison to other nasty things I wouldn't

give my kids), and my familiarity with tobacco is the kind that both of us

agree is nasty. " Real " tobacco, as the natives consumed it, is to my mind

a rare thing (esp. since the herb has changed in 400 years) and possibly

worthy of study, or of interest to those who like it. However, I am

irretrievably

biased by years of being forced to sit next to a chain smoker while I coughed

and hacked.

As for the comparison with meat eating ... I think the studies that show

" meat eating causes xyz " based on diet studies ARE valid, they DO show

something is going on. The interpretation may not be valid ... but for starters,

much of the meat folks eat has a lot of nitrates in it, and it is grain fed

and full of hormones. And much of it is from old dairy cows. So yeah, it

is proof of *something*. The same can also be said for the cigarette

studies ... if tar from a cigarette causes tumors on a mouse's back,

that shows something! The meat studies don't apply to grass fed

beef, because not enough people eat it, nor do the cigarette studies

apply to " natural tobacco as the Indians smoked it " for the same reasons.

However, I *like* the taste of beef, and I don't like the smell of tobacco,

so I'm more willing to research the beef. Also the paleo folks ate a LOT

of beef-like substance, and the Indians didn't smoke all that much tobacco,

so there is more evidence for beef.

>

>It seems the best you could say is that " if I were to smoke or any of my

>family and friends wanted to smoke, I would encourage them to do it my

>grandpa's way. Because the crap my friends were smoking apparently did

>them in. "

Yes, I could have had a disclaimer, tho it wasn't the topic of the original

post, just a side example. I have said things like that though in the past.

Grandpa didn't smoke a *lot* either ... he said that since his cigarettes

didn't stay lit (no gunpowder in them) he couldn't smoke very many,

he had to sit and *smoke* as a dedicated act. He is the only person I've

met in my physical reality that smoked like that though, so it's not

what I think of when I think of smoking.

And for what it is worth, if my kids had to choose between smoking

like that or eating wheat, I'd rather have them smoke (tho not in

my house).

>But it seems to me that this smacks of the same kind of bad rap that

>cholesterol has received, and red meat eating, and fat, and the other

>politically incorrect type of nutrition promoted among WAPers. And all

>the politically correct diatribes against our way of eating has a slew

>of information backing it, so just because there is a slew of " info " against

>tobacco doesn't change the burden of proof, given that smoking IS a

>traditional practice.

Well, that's the old " they persecuted Copernicus too " analogy. I think

those studies about cholesterol, red meat, and fat, all show important

information. The fat studies are some of the ones that ended up showing

trans fats are bad, for instance. High cholesterol CAN show something

important (like, you have an inflammation going on ...). If we start diatribing

against the diatribes, we will become just as blind in what we believe

as we accuse them of being.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

> Mmm...hmmm and I had a meat eating friend die of cancer about 10 years

> ago, lol! In fact the several folks I know of who have died of lung

> cancer didn't smoke at all! Must have been the meat ;-)

>

One of the metabolic typing researchers, Dr. Harold Cristal D.D.S. did some

pretty impressive research with patients who either have cancer or diabetes

http://www.bloodph.com/research/Diabetes%20Cancer%20and%20Weight.html Meat

would be suspected here for the 78% with cancer. Carbs for the 72% with type

II diabetes.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

From: slethnobotanist@... <<No need to wait for some new product. All one

needs to do is ... <snip>... roll their own cigarettes with good tobacco (no

additives, air cured) and good paper (yes, the paper is loaded with additives as

well.)>>

Any recommendation for good hand rolling tobacco and good paper? TIA

Dedy

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 16:40:11 -0700

Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...> wrote:

>

> >Surely you are not offering this as proof :-) What did your friend eat?

> >What kind of lifestyle did she live? What did she smoke? American made

> >cigarettes or the imported variety? Cigars? A pipe?

> >

> >The above statement is highly prejudicial (my friend smoked, argued in

> >favor of it, but died of cancer anyway) meaning apt to touch an

> >emotional button or two but it hardly suffices as evidence.

>

> Well, of course it is prejudicial. Again, in my original statement, I

> was talking about what I choose for my family ... I do not like

> cigarettes, they don't get along with me, etc. But when I said " I don't

> buy my kids cigarettes " it was a generic statement, meaning the

> kind of cigarettes they sell around here, which I think even you

> would agree are trash. All the people (except my grandfather)

> I've met who smoke, smoke regular trashy cigarettes, so I guess

> I wouldn't think to make a disclaimer.

I understand. I think you did with cigarettes what most of us do when we

hear " vegetarian " we assume certain things that may or may not be true.

In the case of vegetarian we assume no animal products, which may or may

not be true. Yet a vegetarian who includes animal products is NOTHING

like a vegan who excludes them.

Same goes for smoking. Most of us automatically assume we are talking

about cigarette smokers, which may or may not be true. And there are

some important distinctions to be made between smokers of American

cigarette brands, and every other type of smoker, be they cigarette,

cigar or pipe.

Your original statement by the way mentioned nothing of your family

(other than your granddad). That came in your second post. I quote part

of it below:

" You know, I used to get into that debate with my ex-MIT ... she

died of lung cancer about 10 years ago. Most of the Marlborough

men died of lung cancer too, I've heard. Call it a major coincidence if you want

....

or it could be the additives in the cigarettes (many of which are

considered carcinogens or outright toxins, I don't have the list

handy but it's pretty amazing what they add!). Anyway, of the folks

I've known who smoked, a high percentage did in fact die of cancer,

mainly lung and larynx, while none of the non-smokers have. Which

is proof enough for me. Emphysema is a horrid way to go too, if you've

watched anyone die of it. "

> I haven't studied the science a lot, because I haven't needed to.

> To me, the *aesthetics* of smoking are enough to make it

> a non-starter. The fact I get blurry eyed and coughy around

> smoke are a second reason, then I can add the fact it costs

> money ... so there is no reason to add it to my life. And while

> I don't mind the fact that my kitchen smells like garlic, cigarette

> smoke really bugs me as an odor additive.

Cigarette smoke bugs me to in my own house (it doesn't bother me in a

well ventilated bar). I used to make the cigarette and cheap (meaning

bad not inexpensive) cigar smokers go outside. The smell was and is

nasty. Now a premium cigar smoker....THAT was a different story, LOL!

> And when you get into studies, I don't think anyone has

> studied native tobacco etc. because there aren't enough

> people smoking it. Marijuana seems to cause some lung

> damage though, if you smoke enough of it, and the smoke

> from my smoker sure bothers my lungs (organic though it is)

> so I don't see the advantage of inhaling smoke particles in

> general.

Certain smoke bothers me and certain smoke doesn't, so I'm not ready to

say all smoke is the same, in fact I highly doubt it. It probably

depends on what is smoking, although some people may be bothered by ALL

smoke.

Most of the world smokes " native " tobacco, so the comparisons that are

made between American cigs and the rest of the world involve just that.

> If you enjoy inhaling smoke particles though, by all means do

> so! I do smoke my meat, which I'm sure some folks would

> disagree with also.

In general cigar and pipe smokers don't inhale. I don't and never have. Smoking

these types of products is like drinking wine, full of many different

flavors, characteristics, nuances, etc. In other words, it is a world

all of its own.

http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/Home/

> Anyway, if someone wants to make a scientific study of

> tobacco minus the additives, they can extract some of the

> tar it produces and paint some on a mouse's back and see

> what happens. Pure tobacco does have some potent stuff in

> it, it's good for getting rid of garden pests, but I'm not going

> to argue one way or another unless someone does some

> studies on it.

Garlic is good for getting rid of garden pests to,and it has some potent

stuff, but I don't plan on eliminating it from my diet.

Extracting something from its whole form nearly always changes the

properties of the element extracted, so I don't really see the relevance.

Using foxglove is one thing and rarely if ever dangerous, using

digitalis is a whole other thing, and must be carefully controlled.

Like the libertarian issue, there is a HOST of material out there. Just

a matter of whether you want to take the time to check it out.

> >You yourself have already given a possible answer above and below, so in

> >the spirit of truthful inquiry, how is what you state above is proof? People

> >against meat eating argue like this all the time.

>

> Like I said, I'm not really trying to prove anything.

I understand but I was just following up on the comment you made in the

first post:

" Anyway, of the folks

I've known who smoked, a high percentage did in fact die of cancer,

mainly lung and larynx, while none of the non-smokers have. Which

is proof enough for me. "

I said I wouldn't give

> them to my kids (and it was in comparison to other nasty things I wouldn't

> give my kids), and my familiarity with tobacco is the kind that both of us

> agree is nasty.

That was in the followup post, not in the post I originally responded

to.

> " Real " tobacco, as the natives consumed it, is to my mind

> a rare thing (esp. since the herb has changed in 400 years) and possibly

> worthy of study, or of interest to those who like it. However, I am

irretrievably

> biased by years of being forced to sit next to a chain smoker while I coughed

> and hacked.

I understand, which is why I said in my previous post:

" and given your own socio-dynamic

with smokers who are no longer amongst us, maybe it isn't a fair

question for you. "

> As for the comparison with meat eating ... I think the studies that show

> " meat eating causes xyz " based on diet studies ARE valid, they DO show

> something is going on. The interpretation may not be valid ... but for

starters,

> much of the meat folks eat has a lot of nitrates in it, and it is grain fed

> and full of hormones. And much of it is from old dairy cows. So yeah, it

> is proof of *something*.

I said that tongue-in-cheek attempting to make a point about jumping to

conclusions about causality. And yes I agree it is proof about something,

just not " meat " eating per se.

The same can also be said for the cigarette

> studies ... if tar from a cigarette causes tumors on a mouse's back,

> that shows something!

It does, but not necessarily anything about smoking. And yes the

cigarette studies prove something, just not necessarily about smoking

tobacco per se.

The meat studies don't apply to grass fed

> beef, because not enough people eat it, nor do the cigarette studies

> apply to " natural tobacco as the Indians smoked it " for the same reasons.

And MOST of the world still smokes it (of those who smoke), which has

been my point all along. American trashy cigarettes are problematic for

reasons other than the tobacco.

> However, I *like* the taste of beef, and I don't like the smell of tobacco,

> so I'm more willing to research the beef. Also the paleo folks ate a LOT

> of beef-like substance, and the Indians didn't smoke all that much tobacco,

> so there is more evidence for beef.

Well I for one am not trying to convince you to smoke. I happen to like

smoking cigars and pipes and don't mind some kinds of smoke. On the

other hand I am not a big fan of smoked meats or cigarette smoke, so its

all a matter of preference.

As for evidence, see comment above.

> >It seems the best you could say is that " if I were to smoke or any of my

> >family and friends wanted to smoke, I would encourage them to do it my

> >grandpa's way. Because the crap my friends were smoking apparently did

> >them in. "

>

> Yes, I could have had a disclaimer, tho it wasn't the topic of the original

> post, just a side example. I have said things like that though in the past.

> Grandpa didn't smoke a *lot* either ... he said that since his cigarettes

> didn't stay lit (no gunpowder in them) he couldn't smoke very many,

> he had to sit and *smoke* as a dedicated act. He is the only person I've

> met in my physical reality that smoked like that though, so it's not

> what I think of when I think of smoking.

>

> And for what it is worth, if my kids had to choose between smoking

> like that or eating wheat, I'd rather have them smoke (tho not in

> my house).

Dufty has a provocative chapter in his book, Sugar Blues, called

" Reach for a Lucky rather than a sweet " or something like that. He is

making a similar point, though much more pro-tobacco than you.

> >But it seems to me that this smacks of the same kind of bad rap that

> >cholesterol has received, and red meat eating, and fat, and the other

> >politically incorrect type of nutrition promoted among WAPers. And all

> >the politically correct diatribes against our way of eating has a slew

> >of information backing it, so just because there is a slew of " info " against

> >tobacco doesn't change the burden of proof, given that smoking IS a

> >traditional practice.

>

> Well, that's the old " they persecuted Copernicus too " analogy.

Uh..huh and just like with Copernicus then the anti-smoking crowd is

wrong now. So in this case, the analogy holds. And to attempt to use it

so as to downplay the credibility of my critique doesn't follow.

I think

> those studies about cholesterol, red meat, and fat, all show important

> information.

Yes they do, but NOT what they have become KNOWN for. Are you suggesting

that we needed to put up with 50 years of heart disease hysteria just to

learn the truth about trans fat? I don't think so.

The fat studies are some of the ones that ended up showing

> trans fats are bad, for instance. High cholesterol CAN show something

> important (like, you have an inflammation going on ...).

Yes but how did WE learn about it? Not from the histrionics about heart

disease and cholesterol. We learned it from the routinely ignored or

routinely misinterpreted studies that folks like Uffe brought to our

attention. I dare say the same goes for the smoking studies.

If we start diatribing

> against the diatribes, we will become just as blind in what we believe

> as we accuse them of being.

Definition of diatribe: A bitter, abusive denunciation

You think that is what this is? Nonsense.

I'm not diatribing against the anti-smoking movement and its " facts. "

There is nothing to be bitter or abusive about.

I'm simply saying it (the anti-smokers) is wrong and biased and highly

prejudicial, and am willing to point that out. Just like I would in

demonstrating the principles of WAP as over against SADism, veganism,

and other less than adequate dietary approaches.

There is nothing blind or bitter about that approach whatsoever.

War, the God That Failed

http://tinyurl.com/2npch

" They told just the same,

That just because a tyrant has the might

By force of arms to murder men downright

And burn down house and home and leave all flat

They call the man a captain, just for that.

But since an outlaw with his little band

Cannot bring half such mischief on the land

Or be the cause of so much harm and grief,

He only earns the title of a thief. "

--Geoffrey Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale

[Guest guest]

>Unless there is something compelling the person, it doesn't follow that

>someone who smokes would smoke all the time, all day long.

>

>Chris

Personally I suspect that a lot of folks who smoke all day long

are self-medicating, tho the additives are probably addictive too.

I look back and wonder at how we ate donuts all day long too though ...

convenience foods (and smokes) means you can just snack incessently.

What happened at work though, was that when a chain-smoker was

hired, suddenly everyone else chain-smoked too ... the smell got them

in the mood, like microwave popcorn.

Having to stop and roll a cigarette though really adds to the process,

you can't do it while you drive, probably not while you are on the phone,

and you can't set the cigarette down to go wait on a customer.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/25/04 11:39:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

slethnobotanist@... writes:

the principles of WAP as over against SADism

LOL! Great term!

Chris

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 21:54:38 EDT

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

> <<<<Yes, I could have had a disclaimer, tho it wasn't the topic of the

> original

> post, just a side example. I have said things like that though in the past.

> Grandpa didn't smoke a *lot* either ... he said that since his cigarettes

> didn't stay lit (no gunpowder in them) he couldn't smoke very many,

> he had to sit and *smoke* as a dedicated act. >>>>

>

> American Spirits stay lit in general, but if they are resting in an ash tray

> or something with no breeze, or if you aren't waving your hand around and you

> don't smoke it for a couple minutes, they usually go out.

>

> The " additive-free tobacco " in Winstons were never like that when I tried

> them, so I always wondered if it was only the *tobacco* that Winston made

> additive free, while they continued to load the *paper* full of accelerants.

>

> Chris

>

Cigars do stay lit and are pretty slow burning, but that has to do with

the fact that cigars are all tobacco (including the wrapper), how they

are made/rolled, and the type of tobacco used in the construction of the

cigar.

War, the God That Failed

http://tinyurl.com/2npch

" They told just the same,

That just because a tyrant has the might

By force of arms to murder men downright

And burn down house and home and leave all flat

They call the man a captain, just for that.

But since an outlaw with his little band

Cannot bring half such mischief on the land

Or be the cause of so much harm and grief,

He only earns the title of a thief. "

--Geoffrey Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale

Eat fat, get thin... lift big, get small.

[Guest guest]

Heidi cited:

Nicotine is vasoconstrictor and a nerve

>toxin, it has been classified as a class I insecticide.

_____

Nicotine is a neurotransmitter. It has identical action to acetylcholine in

a certain class of acetylcholine receptors called " nicotinic receptors, " named

after their response to nicotine.

I imagine *any* neurotransmitter is a " neurotoxin " at sufficient dosage. I

wonder what dosage they used to determine its status as such. Given the

tendency of anti-younameit folks to use massive amounts of something that no one

is

ever exposed to in order to induce some damage in an animal and make a point,

it's certainly worth questioning.

Nicotine, as you noted, actually has very beneficial effects on the nervous

system. It is an anti-psychotic, and it increases mental efficiency and focus.

It's hard to imagine that something that has such beneficial effects could

be neurotoxic at the same dosage.

It is worth noting that nicotine is additive whereas caffeine is depletive.

Caffeine taxes your adrenals by increasing their output, raw materials

remaining constant. Nicotine, on the other hand, acts as a stimulant itself,

rather

than by proxy, like caffeine. Therefore, judicious use of nicotine should

expectedly have productivity benefits without the drawbacks of long-term

depletion of resources.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Heidi cited:

Each year, because of

>exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, an estimated 3,000 nonsmoking

>Americans die of lung cancer, and 300,000 children suffer from lower

>respiratory tract infections.

____

By the way, statistics like this unfailing induce a mild amusement within me.

There's obviously no way to make an accurate estimate such as this, but it

is so convenient for them to be able to explain the anomaly of the all the lung

cancer patients who are non-smokers or never-smokers by aribitrarily

attributing their disease to someone else's smoking habit.

You can prove anything with statistics, but its much easier when you invent

the statistics out of thin air.

Chris

[Guest guest]

or do you know of any quality rolling papers? Hemp perhaps?

Thanks,

Terry

> Cigars do stay lit and are pretty slow burning, but that has to do with

> the fact that cigars are all tobacco (including the wrapper), how they

> are made/rolled, and the type of tobacco used in the construction of the

> cigar.

>

>

[Guest guest]

>An interesting point to be made here: smokers are 8 times less likely to have

>some kind of gut cancer (I forget exactly what type). But former smokers

>have a higher risk than people who have never smoked.

>

>Chris

That is interesting.

Smoking seems to prevent celiac, which is probably one of the major

causes of gut cancer. When I say " prevent " it probably means that

the " symptoms don't cause the person to get tested " ... i.e. the OTHER

problems with IgA reaction to gluten might still be there, one of which

is a propensity to get cancer. Since gluten intolerance also reliably increases

anxiety and depression, which nicotine helps, you could have a bunch

of self-medicating people chainsmoking. See below. I personally suspect

a similar connection between gluten intolerance and alcholism ... gluten

intolerant people are prone to cirrhosis of the liver even if they don't drink,

but alchohol, esp. wine, seems to mitigate the symptoms quite well.

(of course an alternate interpretation of the data could be that gluten

intolerant people have an innate dislike of tobacco, to which I'd

plead guilty, but your bit of data that they get MORE gut cancer

after they quit smoking would cast doubt on that interpretation).

................................................................

This abstract may be relevant to your concern. The study shows that smoking

can mitigate symptoms. Thus, smoking can reduce the impact of mistakes, etc.

Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2003 Sep;15(9):995-1000.

Is the risk of adult coeliac disease causally related to cigarette exposure?

Suman S, EJ, PW, Surgenor SL, Snook JA.

Gastroenterology Unit, Poole Hospital NHS Trust, Dorset, UK.

OBJECTIVE: Previous studies have shown an association between cigarette

smoking and coeliac disease, but it has yet to be established whether this

relationship is causal. The aim of this study was to assess causality using

the Bradford Hill criteria. METHODS: A matched case-control study using a

questionnaire to establish a detailed smoking history for 138 incident cases

of adult coeliac disease and 276 age-matched and sex-matched controls.

Subjects were categorized according to their active cigarette exposure prior

to diagnosis of the matched case, and odds ratios and tests for linear

trends were calculated. RESULTS: At the time of diagnosis, 10% of cases and

30% of controls were current smokers (odds ratio, 0.21 and 95% confidence

interval, 0.11-0.40 for coeliac disease in current smokers versus never

smokers). A biological gradient was demonstrated for total, recent and

current cigarette exposure. The greatest risk reduction related to current

exposure (odds ratio, 0.15, and 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.37 for

coeliac disease in current heavy smokers versus never smokers). CONCLUSIONS:

This study strengthens the case for a causal relationship between smoking

and coeliac disease by demonstrating a strong, temporally appropriate and

dose-dependent effect, thus meeting the Bradford Hill criteria. This

suggests that cigarette smoking truly protects against the development of

adult coeliac disease.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>

>I understand. I think you did with cigarettes what most of us do when we

>hear " vegetarian " we assume certain things that may or may not be true.

>In the case of vegetarian we assume no animal products, which may or may

>not be true. Yet a vegetarian who includes animal products is NOTHING

>like a vegan who excludes them.

I agree.

>

>In general cigar and pipe smokers don't inhale. I don't and never have. Smoking

>these types of products is like drinking wine, full of many different

>flavors, characteristics, nuances, etc. In other words, it is a world

>all of its own.

>

><http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/Home/>http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Ciga\

r/Home<http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/Home/>/

There are a lot of issues with aesthetics, and I for one am in no position

to argue them! Humans have for all recorded history indulged in a

wide variety of things because they feel or taste " good. " I've also heard

it convincingly argued that humans need a respite from reality on

occasion, which is why most tribal cultures had some form of drug

use or hypnotic dancing or extreme fasting. However, those cultures,

it is argued, *also* had a cultural support for the person who was temporarily

out of reality, so the person didn't get hurt in the process nor could

they overindulge easily. I suspect the " pipe after the evening meal " ritual

falls into that category (ditto for wine, which is my indulgence).

>Extracting something from its whole form nearly always changes the

>properties of the element extracted, so I don't really see the relevance.

>Using foxglove is one thing and rarely if ever dangerous, using

>digitalis is a whole other thing, and must be carefully controlled.

>

>Like the libertarian issue, there is a HOST of material out there. Just

>a matter of whether you want to take the time to check it out.

I'm sure there is, but I see this a lot like the soy debate. There is a LOT

of good data on both sides. I tend to take the simplistic view ... my grandad

didn't eat it, it's a new thing (in this country, whatever the status is in

Asia).

Plus beans in general are " new " foods in a Paleo sense.

So, my personal take on the tobacco issue is:

1. The commercial cigarettes are either decidedly problematic, or the tobacco

companies have hired lousy lawyers. Given the money they have spent defending

their products, and the amount of research that has been done, they aren't

something

I'd add to my life in any case.

2. There isn't enough data to say what went on with the Indians and tobacco in

any scientific sense. First, most of them were wiped out by smalllpox before the

white folks even came over in great numbers, which you can figure narrowed

the gene pool somewhat. The Indians have a very narrow range of haplotypes

in any event, so one could make the argument that any genes that predispose

to tobacco problems were nonexistent or wiped out.

Second, their tobacco wasn't the same as our tobacco. Third, their use if it

was I'm sure far different (seems like only the guys smoked, not women or

children, and then only on certain occasions).

Fourth, the Indians did a LOT of things (esp. the males) that if they

contributed

to health, they did it by thinning the gene pool! Such as running hooks through

their muscles and dragging large loads, scarring their bodies, raiding nearby

villages, stunt riding ... humans have a habit of doing things BECAUSE they are

dangerous, for status or to prove their worth. Drinking and smoking often

do that in our society (wow, there is a man who can really hold his likker!) as

do such activities as rock climbing without a rope, snowboarding, parachuting.

Those activities may well contribute to mental health etc. but I wouldn't argue

that they are innately healthy. So, one could speculate that an Indian who could

smoke tobacco without coughing was " proving " his lungs were in good shape,

as well as bonding with his buddies etc. and having a feel-good experience, and

he was probably healthy enough that his lungs could clear the tar and smoke

(and they lived with smoke all the time, so their lungs were used to it, the

smoke

clearing mechanisms working well: if babies were born with " twitchy " lungs they

likely didn't survive to adulthood).

Anyway, all I'm saying is that there are a LOT of questions here. I'm sure

nicotine

has some good effects (or no one would go to so much work to get it, plus

there are plenty of studies that show that) but there are plenty of questions

as to the health status of it. Just as there are with soy. Something that may

work

in one culture does not necessarily translate into working in another culture.

But even if it WAS proved that smoking " good " cigarettes was somewhat harmful,

a lot of folks would still do it, for all the reasons we do things that are

somewhat

harmful (figuring the rest of our life is healthy enough) ... that is how humans

operate. It can also be argued that stressing out the body (by working hard,

or being exposed to barnyard bacteria or extreme cold or heat) strengthens the

immune system, builds blood vessels, etc.

>The meat studies don't apply to grass fed

>> beef, because not enough people eat it, nor do the cigarette studies

>> apply to " natural tobacco as the Indians smoked it " for the same reasons.

>

>And MOST of the world still smokes it (of those who smoke), which has

>been my point all along. American trashy cigarettes are problematic for

>reasons other than the tobacco.

??? Are the cigarettes overseas really better? My understanding is that

a lot of the ones sold overseas are made by American companies. It

does seem that the French, for instance, can smoke more than Americans

and still be healthier ... their lifestyle is so different though it's hard

to make a comparison. Seems like their cigarettes stayed lit though, which

was the point my grandad didn't like, he said it meant they had gunpowder

in them. Gunpowder is associated with lung problems in any case ... it's full

of nitrate, if nothing else.

However, I also have to say that grandad died at 72 of heart disease, and the

other " healthy " smoker I know just had a heart attack. Grandma didn't

smoke, and lived to be 94. 72 is a pretty good age, 94 is better.

That's not scientific, but fact it, many of our decisions are based on

looking around at what is happening to our family and humans near us.

Some new thing comes up, and folks like me wait around and see what

happens to the " bleeding edge " folks that try it out!

>

>Well I for one am not trying to convince you to smoke. I happen to like

>smoking cigars and pipes and don't mind some kinds of smoke. On the

>other hand I am not a big fan of smoked meats or cigarette smoke, so its

>all a matter of preference.

>

>

>Uh..huh and just like with Copernicus then the anti-smoking crowd is

>wrong now. So in this case, the analogy holds. And to attempt to use it

>so as to downplay the credibility of my critique doesn't follow.

Heh heh. Are you SURE they are wrong? I don't see that there is

compelling evidence on either side at this point ... it's an open debate.

>I think

>> those studies about cholesterol, red meat, and fat, all show important

>> information.

>

>Yes they do, but NOT what they have become KNOWN for. Are you suggesting

>that we needed to put up with 50 years of heart disease hysteria just to

>learn the truth about trans fat? I don't think so.

Well, if you are arguing about " popular culture " and " hysteria " there really

isn't anything to argue .. humans love fads and following crowds, and

often those fads aren't based on sound science. The folks who want

to read the studies and the journals can ... and most of the science folks

now are against trans fats, and that is leaking into the popular culture

pretty quickly. As is the evidence against grain fed beef. So it's likely you'll

see (and are seeing) the " politically correct " way of eating shift to

grass fed beef and good fats. I agree the studies get misinterpreted a lot,

but scientists are an obsessive lot and eventually they get heard.

>Yes but how did WE learn about it? Not from the histrionics about heart

>disease and cholesterol. We learned it from the routinely ignored or

>routinely misinterpreted studies that folks like Uffe brought to our

>attention. I dare say the same goes for the smoking studies.

That IS the problem with living in a capitalistic society ... what we hear

is mainly what people pay to have us hear, in the form of advertisements.

Ditto for doctors ... whoever has money gets to put up ads. So the

smarter and more obsessive folks have to search for information (which,

thank the Constitution writers and Internet makers), is legal and cheap to post.

But what would be the alternative?

Humans have a long history of histrionics and fad following though, I don't

expect that to change. Last century there were different fads ... cocaine

and mercury in medicine, arsenic baths. Today " the truth " seems to be

easier to search out, and the negative stuff comes to the fore more

quickly. The whole process of arguing over " what is true " is part of

the process (as we do in this group a lot!).

>

>I'm simply saying it (the anti-smokers) is wrong and biased and highly

>prejudicial, and am willing to point that out. Just like I would in

>demonstrating the principles of WAP as over against SADism, veganism,

>and other less than adequate dietary approaches.

>

>There is nothing blind or bitter about that approach whatsoever.

I agree, you are not blind or bitter (which I appreciate!). I was

thinking of the way you seem so SURE that the " other side " is

" blind and highly prejudicial " ... esp. since most of what the " other side "

is protesting (when they protest, not that I've heard much protest,

actually) are " commercial cigarettes " esp. when smoked in public,

and you seem to be equally against the commerical, American cigarettes.

Even in houses that are anti-cigarette, there is a male (IME) member who

smokes a pipe or expensive cigars, it seems. They, like you it seems,

don't consider that " smoking " in the sense of " smoking they don't like " .

So if I was to do an analysis of society, it would seem to me that there

is a convergence of opinion happening, and maybe we'll end up with

something like the n model, where the guy goes into the " smoking

room " in his " smoking jacket " and enjoys a pipe or cigar and a quaff of

good brandy ... well, maybe the women will join him, since we are a bit

past the n times ...

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 01:49:40 +0100

" Rundle " <dpdgr@...> wrote:

> From: slethnobotanist@... <<No need to wait for some new product. All

one needs to do is ... <snip>... roll their own cigarettes with good tobacco (no

additives, air cured) and good paper (yes, the paper is loaded with additives as

well.)>>

>

>

> Any recommendation for good hand rolling tobacco and good paper? TIA

>

> Dedy

>

Hi Dedy,

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner.

I don't roll my own tobacco (I'm a cigar and pipe smoker) so I

unfortunately do not have any good recommendations other than what

American Spirits sells.

Kick the Habit: Don't Vote!

http://tinyurl.com/439vl

Eat fat, get thin... lift big, get small.

" They told just the same,

That just because a tyrant has the might

By force of arms to murder men downright

And burn down house and home and leave all flat

They call the man a captain, just for that.

But since an outlaw with his little band

Cannot bring half such mischief on the land

Or be the cause of so much harm and grief,

He only earns the title of a thief. "

--Geoffrey Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale

[Guest guest]

Here's another angle:

http://www.mrbean.net.au/~wlast/hamer.html

Look for " lung " in the article.

[Guest guest]

Here's another angle:

http://www.mrbean.net.au/~wlast/hamer.html

Look for " lung " in the article.