Smoking Is Good For You!

[anonymousoneuk]

I just posted this in another thread, but thought it worthy of it's own:

SMOKING IS NOT BAD FOR YOU.

There is only 1 brand of organic tabacco in the world, the only other way to get a healthy source of tabacco would be to grow your own.

Smoking has been regarded for millenia as a healing plant, in actually increases aerobic capacity by increasing heamoglobin levels in the blood and it coats the mucous membranes of the lungs witha n extra thick layer of the mucous it would normally secrete to protect the lungs from infection(hence smokers cough).

It activates the acetylcholine neurotransmitter receptors, as well as other neurotransmitter systems in way that one does not devlop tolerance(which is a neurotoxic reaction) to like coffee, cocaine and other stimulants.

Tabacco is a non neurotoxic mental stimulant.

Tabacco has potent spiritual properties, it is widely used by amazonian shamans, the tabacoo grown there is so strong it can induce "altered states of consciousness".

This is why the powers that be, have banned smoking, they learned of it's potensial to awaken one spiritually, so they stigmatised the use of tabacco and seek to outright ban it.

In the mean time they have sought to corrupt commercially availble tabacco, which is now effectively fertilised with toaxic and even radioactive waste.

All brands of commercially availible tabacoo except one indeed will be harmful to your health, but even the commercially availible brands can have spiritual and health advantages, that are not completely offset by the minor toxicification issue that arouse from the chemicals added in the growth and processing of tabacco and cigarettes.

The one i smoke is American Spirit Organic Blend, i smoke it for the above reasons, smoking it is good for you.

Peace and Bless :)
__________________

[farros]

yep, coughing up heaps of phlegm every morning is good for you ;)

[raffles]

Does make you think, they have been on the warpath big time the last few years against smoking which i always thought was odd, if it can kill you like they say it can.

[blokey]

Does make you think, they have been on the warpath big time the last few years against smoking which i always thought was odd, if it can kill you like they say it can.

It makes you think but not research..hmm

The reason anti-smoking has become top of the agenda is simple.

Some bright spark has worked out smokers actually cost more to the economy.

If you take all the tax from a smoker over his/her lifetime and add it up it comes to less than what the NHS pays out on average over a smokers life for smoking realted illness.

Simple eh?

[stikmata]

wow... two dissenting viewpoints right off the bat!

I've seen threads like this go on for 3 pages on this forum before anyone says WTF.

I personally compare smoking cigarettes to believing 911 was done by Muslim extremists with boxcutters. It takes so much self delusion to avoid the facts and continue on abusing yourself... it also takes a kind of "awakening" to free yourself from the mental and behavior loop that those beliefs put you in.


Also.... LMFAO @ American Spirits being the only organic tobacco company in the world... who could take a post seriously with simple and blatant errors such as that!

[baron von lotsov]

I just posted this in another thread, but thought it worthy of it's own:

SMOKING IS NOT BAD FOR YOU.

There is only 1 brand of organic tabacco in the world, the only other way to get a healthy source of tabacco would be to grow your own.

Smoking has been regarded for millenia as a healing plant, in actually increases aerobic capacity by increasing heamoglobin levels in the blood and it coats the mucous membranes of the lungs witha n extra thick layer of the mucous it would normally secrete to protect the lungs from infection(hence smokers cough).

It activates the acetylcholine neurotransmitter receptors, as well as other neurotransmitter systems in way that one does not devlop tolerance(which is a neurotoxic reaction) to like coffee, cocaine and other stimulants.

Tabacco is a non neurotoxic mental stimulant.

Tabacco has potent spiritual properties, it is widely used by amazonian shamans, the tabacoo grown there is so strong it can induce "altered states of consciousness".

This is why the powers that be, have banned smoking, they learned of it's potensial to awaken one spiritually, so they stigmatised the use of tabacco and seek to outright ban it.

In the mean time they have sought to corrupt commercially availble tabacco, which is now effectively fertilised with toaxic and even radioactive waste.

All brands of commercially availible tabacoo except one indeed will be harmful to your health, but even the commercially availible brands can have spiritual and health advantages, that are not completely offset by the minor toxicification issue that arouse from the chemicals added in the growth and processing of tabacco and cigarettes.

The one i smoke is American Spirit Organic Blend, i smoke it for the above reasons, smoking it is good for you.

Peace and Bless :)
__________________


I think the radioactive bollox is bollox. Show me a Geiger counter next to a packet of tobacco to demonstrate or else I'll just carry on thinking it is a rouse to scare people.

[amar7]

I also smoke American Spirit, but nevertheless I dont think that its healthy at all ..
And also American Spirit is definitly not the only brand which has got no additives

[tb303]

It makes you think but not research..hmm
If you take all the tax from a smoker over his/her lifetime and add it up it comes to less than what the NHS pays out on average over a smokers life for smoking realted illness.

Simple eh?

Really?

According to the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7283112.stm):

Those who part with a fistful of coins for a packet of cigarettes can do so safe in the knowledge that 77% of that is headed to the Exchequer.

So, if you've done the research, then what's the average tax burden on the average smoker versus the cost of what they receive in NHS care? :rolleyes:

[ticker]

This is the first I hear of smoking actually being healthy for you. I am not one to rule anything out until I've done the research for myself. Here is a link to a web page I just visited supporting smoking. As of right now, I am leaning much more towards the fact that smoking is unhealthy.

http://www.zug.com/scrawl/smoking/

"Good Lord, what's that in your pocket, son?"
"Just a gun, mister."
"Oh! I thought it might be some cigarettes! All right! Run along then, young scamp."

TiCkEr

[survivor1]

I smoke but it makes me cough and tight chested on occasion which I do not find particularly healthy but I think even more damage is done by the health warning on the packet you subconsciously read each time you have a smoke telling you you will die early etc.
This enters your belief system and Bobs your uncle you die early or suffer whatever effects and diseases the packets have been telling you to get.

Tobacco has it's benefits maybe, but like everything else in moderation.

[ticker]

I smoke but it makes me cough and tight chested on occasion which I do not find particularly healthy but I think even more damage is done by the health warning on the packet you subconsciously read each time you have a smoke telling you you will die early etc.
This enters your belief system and Bobs your uncle you die early or suffer whatever effects and diseases the packets have been telling you to get.

Tobacco has it's benefits maybe, but like everything else in moderation.

Agreed. Many smokers like to argue that stress is the main cause of all illness and smoking helps reduce stress. Although the cigarettes themselves might not be healthy, they are a good reminder to go and take a break and take deep breathes and relax. Same goes for when you are smoking a cigarette except you are taking a deep breathe of smoke, not fresh air.

Though I have heard that a thin coating of nicotine on the surface of the lungs can prevent the growth of a viruses at times. How accurate this is I am not sure..

TiCkEr

[amar7]

I smoke but it makes me cough and tight chested on occasion which I do not find particularly healthy but I think even more damage is done by the health warning on the packet you subconsciously read each time you have a smoke telling you you will die early etc.
This enters your belief system and Bobs your uncle you die early or suffer whatever effects and diseases the packets have been telling you to get.

Tobacco has it's benefits maybe, but like everything else in moderation.

The health warning is very bad no doubt, but it's not worse than the effects of smoking on your health (if you are a regular smoker)
anyway you made a good point

[anonymousoneuk]

I smoke but it makes me cough and tight chested on occasion which I do not find particularly healthy but I think even more damage is done by the health warning on the packet you subconsciously read each time you have a smoke telling you you will die early etc.
This enters your belief system and Bobs your uncle you die early or suffer whatever effects and diseases the packets have been telling you to get.

Tobacco has it's benefits maybe, but like everything else in moderation.

Well there was a time when i was thinking of quitting, i went down to my local pharmacy where they had a quit-smoking clinic.

They gave me a breath test, i was told to take a deep breath and blow out at a pace so the devise could measure my lung capasity.

After about 20-30 seconds i was still blowing and the woman looked somewhat shocked, after 40-50 seconds i think i ran out of air, the woman looked at the devise and told me my lung capasity was far above normal and that she could not believe i had been smoking for 2 years.

That was smoking regular tabacco, i now only smoke organic, as the source in my sig states this is beneficial and i've found enough confirmatory evidence elsewhere.

You are very wise Soulsurvivor1:

Q: (L) Is it true that the government program to stamp out smoking is inspired by the Lizzies?
A: Yes because they know it may heighten psychic abilities.
Q: (L) What is causing the lung cancer they are attributing to smoking?
A: Mental conditioning and subliminal programming to expect it.
Q: (L) So, it only happens if you are convinced that it can and must happen?
A: Correct.

They say more about smoking which has influenced my perspective, but i'm finding it hard to locate that information.

Peace and Bless :)

[kallista]

http://www.vialls.com/transpositions/smoking.html


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

[anonymousoneuk]

Does make you think, they have been on the warpath big time the last few years against smoking which i always thought was odd, if it can kill you like they say it can.

It is odd isn't it?

Why would "they" ban something that's bad for us, they pollute the enviroment, food and water supply as much as possible with toxins, pesticides and neurotoxic elements like flouride, all of which are carcinogenic(cancer causing), they allow us to consume a diet that has caused massive rates of diabetes and obesity, why would they want to protect us from smoking?

Q: (L) Is it true that the government program to stamp out smoking is inspired by the Lizzies?
A: Yes because they know it may heighten psychic abilities.

Peace and Bless :)

[anonymousoneuk]

Thankyou Kallista, i think i can rest my case upon your excellent post.

I was going to mention, that radioactivity was responsible for the increase in Cancers rates aswell, thousands of tonnes of deplete urianium have been dumped onto iraq in Gulf Wars I and II, if you google "uranium weapons" and "iraq", you'll alot of information about increased cancer rates in children and deformed babies in Baghdad being linked to DU weaponry, very sad.

Peace and Bless :)

[gugdav]

Hate to burst all the smokers bubbles, but smoking really is bad for you no matter how hard you try and rationalise.

Now, lets get one thing straight here,
a) I cant stand the UK's orwellian government and wouldnt support them if they offered me money
b) I smoked "professionally" for 18 years (morning noon and night, whilst working, driving , eating, anything - I could smoke for England - on average 25-30 a day.) - and I dont agree with the smoking ban.

Smoking is the biggest con trick and self imposed slavery that ever existed.
(dont worry , I dont mind if you smoke, i'm not a zealous convert - i dont think it should be banned, but i do think that the book I mention below should be given away with every pack of cigarettes).

Remember the first time you smoked and how disgusting it was (oh how you thought you looked impressive breathing fire !)

Remember, you had to force yourself to continue smoking, you had to learn to enjoy it.In a fairly short period of time, you got used to it and you actually convince yourself that you enjoy it (even though it is physically the same smelly act of breathing in smoke from burning leaves that it was that first time). And to this day, you believe (and you would spend hours convincing me that...) you enjoy it (been there , done that).

Its fantastic to lug down that first hit after you've gone all day without a ciggie isnt it.

Unfortunately, the "pleasure" you get *isnt* from the cigarette you're smoking.
Its from the relief of satisfying the craving driven by the nicotine withdrawal as a result of the last cigarette you smoked.

Every cigarette you "enjoy" is actually just a craving relief caused by the last one.

Someone recommended "The Easiway to give up smoking" by Alan Carr.
It cost 7 quid on amazon, I bought it and didnt even really want to give up smoking. Once I read it, I couldnt wait to give up. Its like flicking a switch in your head and turning off the desire to smoke. I was amazed how easy it was and how little the actual "withdrawal" was once you actually dont want to smoke.

Smoking really is a con trick.
Get the book, I thoroughly recommend it.

Just a shit shame that Alan Carr died of lung cancer - he certainly saved my life - I never even dared to really try and give up until I stumbled on his book almost by accident.

I gave up in sept 2002. Haven't had the slighted inclination to start smoking again since.

[cleft_asunder]

I just posted this in another thread, but thought it worthy of it's own:

SMOKING IS NOT BAD FOR YOU.

There is only 1 brand of organic tabacco in the world, the only other way to get a healthy source of tabacco would be to grow your own.

Smoking has been regarded for millenia as a healing plant, in actually increases aerobic capacity by increasing heamoglobin levels in the blood and it coats the mucous membranes of the lungs witha n extra thick layer of the mucous it would normally secrete to protect the lungs from infection(hence smokers cough).

It activates the acetylcholine neurotransmitter receptors, as well as other neurotransmitter systems in way that one does not devlop tolerance(which is a neurotoxic reaction) to like coffee, cocaine and other stimulants.

Tabacco is a non neurotoxic mental stimulant.

Tabacco has potent spiritual properties, it is widely used by amazonian shamans, the tabacoo grown there is so strong it can induce "altered states of consciousness".

This is why the powers that be, have banned smoking, they learned of it's potensial to awaken one spiritually, so they stigmatised the use of tabacco and seek to outright ban it.

In the mean time they have sought to corrupt commercially availble tabacco, which is now effectively fertilised with toaxic and even radioactive waste.

All brands of commercially availible tabacoo except one indeed will be harmful to your health, but even the commercially availible brands can have spiritual and health advantages, that are not completely offset by the minor toxicification issue that arouse from the chemicals added in the growth and processing of tabacco and cigarettes.

The one i smoke is American Spirit Organic Blend, i smoke it for the above reasons, smoking it is good for you.

Peace and Bless :)
__________________

I smoke american spirit organic blend too. It's not organic anymore. They add something to it. When I smoke it, it puts a pressure on my head like it's in a vise. Makes me feel sick and ill.

The company got acquired by big tobacco years ago, and I've heard that people say that the old stuff and new stuff doesn't taste the same. Could have been a psychological thing, and I only heard this from a friend. Consider it though.

Any way, I dont' know where to get REAL tobacco. Been trying to find some organic small-scale stuff in the states. I quite smoking recently due to liver issues, so ummm... that's on hold.

[anonymousoneuk]

Hate to burst all the smokers bubbles, but smoking really is bad for you no matter how hard you try and rationalise.

Now, lets get one thing straight here,
a) I cant stand the UK's orwellian government and wouldnt support them if they offered me money
b) I smoked "professionally" for 18 years (morning noon and night, whilst working, driving , eating, anything - I could smoke for England - on average 25-30 a day.) - and I dont agree with the smoking ban.

Smoking is the biggest con trick and self imposed slavery that ever existed.
(dont worry , I dont mind if you smoke, i'm not a zealous convert - i dont think it should be banned, but i do think that the book I mention below should be given away with every pack of cigarettes).

Remember the first time you smoked and how disgusting it was (oh how you thought you looked impressive breathing fire !)

Remember, you had to force yourself to continue smoking, you had to learn to enjoy it.In a fairly short period of time, you got used to it and you actually convince yourself that you enjoy it (even though it is physically the same smelly act of breathing in smoke from burning leaves that it was that first time). And to this day, you believe (and you would spend hours convincing me that...) you enjoy it (been there , done that).

Its fantastic to lug down that first hit after you've gone all day without a ciggie isnt it.

Unfortunately, the "pleasure" you get *isnt* from the cigarette you're smoking.
Its from the relief of satisfying the craving driven by the nicotine withdrawal as a result of the last cigarette you smoked.

Every cigarette you "enjoy" is actually just a craving relief caused by the last one.

Someone recommended "The Easiway to give up smoking" by Alan Carr.
It cost 7 quid on amazon, I bought it and didnt even really want to give up smoking. Once I read it, I couldnt wait to give up. Its like flicking a switch in your head and turning off the desire to smoke. I was amazed how easy it was and how little the actual "withdrawal" was once you actually dont want to smoke.

Smoking really is a con trick.
Get the book, I thoroughly recommend it.

Just a shit shame that Alan Carr died of lung cancer - he certainly saved my life - I never even dared to really try and give up until I stumbled on his book almost by accident.

I gave up in sept 2002. Haven't had the slighted inclination to start smoking again since.


Actually i loved smoking from the first puff...

Smoking is pleasurable because it raises dopamine levels by inhibiting monoamine oxidase enzyme B via a mechanism totally independant of Nicotine.

The nicotine theory makes me laugh as does most theories produced from pharmaceutical funded research, especially in the neurological and psychiatric field.

The brain is not that simple that a single compound could account for all of the neurophysiological effects of tabacco.

I don't have any doubt that tabacco can be addictive, anything can be addictive, dopamine is the primary neurotransmitter responsible for addiction and pleasure, smoking raises doapmine levels therefore it is pleasurable and addictive.

The fact it contains nicotine which stimulates the acetylcholine receptors, which are dominant in the hippocampus region of the mind located in the limbic system, thought to be partly responsible for emotions, learning and attension, has nothing to do with it's addictive properties, this infact has to do with it's nootropic properties.

Peace and Bless :)

[anonymousoneuk]

I smoke american spirit organic blend too. It's not organic anymore. They add something to it. When I smoke it, it puts a pressure on my head like it's in a vise. Makes me feel sick and ill.

The company got acquired by big tobacco years ago, and I've heard that people say that the old stuff and new stuff doesn't taste the same. Could have been a psychological thing, and I only heard this from a friend. Consider it though.

Any way, I dont' know where to get REAL tobacco. Been trying to find some organic small-scale stuff in the states. I quite smoking recently due to liver issues, so ummm... that's on hold.

Will keep this in mind, i had considered the potensial that they had been covertly corrupted, as i see things the environment is toxified to an insane degree in anycase, ascension is my best best for survival and long-term good health.

Smokings one of the few vices i allow myself and it doesn't hurt anyone seriously, i consider it to be of emotional and spiritual benefit no matter what anyone says, with 4-5 years left on the doomsday clock, why should i be worried about the long-term consequences of smoking when my lungs are "far above average capasity" and i exercise daily, smoking not holding me back there any i smoke before i exercise and after...

The acetylcholine, hemoglobin and dopamine activation it causes is even beneficial to exericse, the out of breathness the ex-smokers here would probably describe is just in their heads.

Peace and Bless :)

[cleft_asunder]

Will keep this in mind, i had considered the potensial that they had been covertly corrupted, as i see things the environment is toxified to an insane degree in anycase, ascension is my best best for survival and long-term good health.

Smokings one of the few vices i allow myself and it doesn't hurt anyone seriously, i consider it to be of emotional and spiritual benefit no matter what anyone says, with 4-5 years left on the doomsday clock, why should i be worried about the long-term consequences of smoking when my lungs are "far above average capasity" and i exercise daily, smoking not holding me back there any i smoke before i exercise and after...

The acetylcholine, hemoglobin and dopamine activation it causes is even beneficial to exericse, the out of breathness the ex-smokers here would probably describe is just in their heads.

Peace and Bless :)

I like smoking too mate. No matter how many times I've quite, I always go back since It's a part of me. I love smoking the earth.

I think I'm going to buy some stuff from South America. They have the really strong stuff you mention on the net --the stuff the andiginous people smoke. Wish I had some right now.

[anonymousoneuk]

I like smoking too mate. No matter how many times I've quite, I always go back since It's a part of me. I love smoking the earth.

I think I'm going to buy some stuff from South America. They have the really strong stuff you mention on the net --the stuff the andiginous people smoke. Wish I had some right now.

Got a link to the South American stuff?

I had to order my American Spirit from Germany...

Peace and Bless :)

[cleft_asunder]

Got a link to the South American stuff?

I had to order my American Spirit from Germany...

Peace and Bless :)

I'd have to search around. ^_^ I've bought mimosa and syrian rue off the net and made Ayahuasca with it, so I'm sure the smoking blends are out there...

[gremlin]

smoking is bad for the body unless its smoking some kind of hallucinogenic;)

[cleft_asunder]

smoking is bad for the body unless its smoking some kind of hallucinogenic;)

Yeah, like real tobacco.

[supertzar]

I got Nicotiana rustica seeds from Bouncing Bear Botanicals for ten bucks including shipping. It's great to grow it yourself. I've made posts about it before.

[anonymousoneuk]

I got Nicotiana rustica seeds from Bouncing Bear Botanicals for ten bucks including shipping. It's great to grow it yourself. I've made posts about it before.

Mind if i ask where you are from?

What conditions are require to grow your own tabacco?

What kind of results did you get?

I've also seen the "plants" are more like trees lol, how big did yours get?

Peace and Bless :)

[fayette]

jesus fucking christ you guys are gulliable. do you believe every conspiracy you read? where is the hard core evidence? :rolleyes: people here seem to believe EVERYTHING.

[raginggran]

I got Nicotiana rustica seeds from Bouncing Bear Botanicals for ten bucks including shipping. It's great to grow it yourself. I've made posts about it before.


Tobacco plants can be grown indoors..very easily done.
Hemp is our Bamboo..guess what happened.

Good luck and love
gran

[supertzar]

Mind if i ask where you are from?

What conditions are require to grow your own tabacco?

What kind of results did you get?

I've also seen the "plants" are more like trees lol, how big did yours get?

Peace and Bless :)

I live at the 42nd parallel in the US. They need direct sunlight and a soil with good drainage. A raised bed garden with lots of composted manure and other soil amendments would be ideal. I got excellent results growing N. rustica in these conditions. The plants got up to about six feet tall with huge leaves. Start them indoors under lights for larger plants (hurry!)

The best smoke was actually the leaves that fell on the ground and got bleached by the sun, which taught me a lesson about drying: you need the sun to break down the chlorophyll in the leaves. Otherwise it's too harsh. N. rustica is NOT like N. Tobaccum. It will kick your ass hard. There will probably not be too many times you will want to smoke a whole cigarette by yourself. You get blasted on rustica. It has ten to twenty times the nicotine plus harmine and harmaline. You'll smoke less, which might be good. I don't know. As far as tobacco being good or bad, it is likely that the main disease-causing agent in tobacco is phosphate fertilizer. It has radioactive isotopes. I am not sure if it can be used by "organic" growers, but I think I read that it can, so be careful even of American Spirit. Homegrown is way better. I'm sure you would never want to smoke anything other than it after trying it.

[monkfish]

If this is true then this is great,lets crack on. But at the moment it sounds like people are convincing themselves that smoking is healthy because it's a bummer trying to pack in.
I smoke, but i wouldnt say it does me the world of good,but of course i may be wrong.
On the other point, maybe the powers that be now make more money from us trying to pack in smoking, patches ect.
Confused

[blokey]

Really?

So, if you've done the research, then what's the average tax burden on the average smoker versus the cost of what they receive in NHS care? :rolleyes:

Tobacco losses

But not everyone believes that tobacco is for the economic good.

"Tobacco not only kills people, it also saps national treasuries," says the World Health Organisation.

It believes that the cost of smoking-related health care far outweighs the other financial benefits.

Indeed, the World Bank says tobacco actually results in a global net loss of US $200bn per year. About one third of these losses are suffered in the developing world

There..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/459157.stm

[kallista]

jesus fucking christ you guys are gulliable. do you believe every conspiracy you read? where is the hard core evidence? :rolleyes: people here seem to believe EVERYTHING.

I posted some 'evidence' on page two. It is about looking at different viewpoints and making up your own mind, btw blokey, the last organisation i would believe is the world bank.

[anonymousoneuk]

If this is true then this is great,lets crack on. But at the moment it sounds like people are convincing themselves that smoking is healthy because it's a bummer trying to pack in.
I smoke, but i wouldnt say it does me the world of good,but of course i may be wrong.
On the other point, maybe the powers that be now make more money from us trying to pack in smoking, patches ect.
Confused

I'd smoke regardless, so i don't need to convince myself, i am dependant on tabacco for so many things, whether it's healthy for me or not is not actually of much concern.

I happen to believe organic or homegrown tabacoo is healtheir than commerical and that the unhealthy effects of tabacco are exagerated to program people to expect negative effects from the use of tabacco, all as part of a agenda to prevent people deriving mental and spiritual benefit from it.

Their motives are no financially motivated as they control the economy and print all the money!

Peace and Bless :)

[anonymousoneuk]

I posted some 'evidence' on page two. It is about looking at different viewpoints and making up your own mind, btw blokey, the last organisation i would believe is the world bank.

With you on that one ;)

Peace and Bless :)

[anonymousoneuk]

I live at the 42nd parallel in the US. They need direct sunlight and a soil with good drainage. A raised bed garden with lots of composted manure and other soil amendments would be ideal. I got excellent results growing N. rustica in these conditions. The plants got up to about six feet tall with huge leaves. Start them indoors under lights for larger plants (hurry!)

The best smoke was actually the leaves that fell on the ground and got bleached by the sun, which taught me a lesson about drying: you need the sun to break down the chlorophyll in the leaves. Otherwise it's too harsh. N. rustica is NOT like N. Tobaccum. It will kick your ass hard. There will probably not be too many times you will want to smoke a whole cigarette by yourself. You get blasted on rustica. It has ten to twenty times the nicotine plus harmine and harmaline. You'll smoke less, which might be good. I don't know. As far as tobacco being good or bad, it is likely that the main disease-causing agent in tobacco is phosphate fertilizer. It has radioactive isotopes. I am not sure if it can be used by "organic" growers, but I think I read that it can, so be careful even of American Spirit. Homegrown is way better. I'm sure you would never want to smoke anything other than it after trying it.

Doubt i've got much chance of growing them here then unfortunetely, i have no garden , although could secure a private allotment of land for growing on.

I'd also be concerned about the british weather it's been very unpredicatble the last few years, but we're generally cold and rainy, summers can be hot, but not realibly.

I had read about N. rustica and was familiar with the fact they contained much greater amounts of nicotine and harmine(this is the substance which inhibits MAO-B ennzymes), i think this is to remain a dream for me, as i don't think i'll be able to get my hands on any any time soon.

I've been trying to read up on the fertilisers that are allowed to be used by the USDA in it's national organic farming (NOP) program.

I mentioned earlier in the thread that they use radioactive materials in the production of commerical tabacco.

This link suggest that the tabacco industry was aware in the 1980's or even earlier, but refused to switched from the radioactive fertilizer calcium phosphate to the non-radioactive ammonium phosphate.

http://www.tobacco.org/Documents/dd/ddradioactivecigs.html

http://www.tobacco.org/Documents/dd/ddradioactivecigs.html

I'm going to do my best to find out what fertilizers are used in the production of American Spirits Organic Blend, i'm also going to try and get my hands on some of that N. rustica.

Peace and Bless :)

[thirdwave]

Im sure there are some tobaccos that are better for you, but being addicted to nicotine is certainly not good for you... being addicted to anything is not good for you let alone substances.

[the_sheeple]

British medical journal publication of a 39yr study into passive smoking, conclusion little harm. here (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&author1=Enstrom&searchid=1063319549099_12436&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=1,2,3,4,10)


"Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed."

[bicycle]

Well good for you, keep smoking then. The ony thing my lungs need is clean air.

[amar7]

Also American Spirit is fucked up, because it gets very dry very fast

[amar7]

You look like you do Bodybuilding, and definitly must have realized, that smoking makes your condition worse

[synergy777]

if one follows vedic/torah laws, meat is forbidden, wine well in moderation, but weed/smoking tobacco, is all good, genesis 1.12.

[sir nob jerkoff]

Also American Spirit is fucked up, because it gets very dry very fast

Odd. I find the complete opposite.

[sir nob jerkoff]

On the other point, maybe the powers that be now make more money from us trying to pack in smoking, patches ect.


'Smokeless nicotine delivery systems' are now a multi-billion dollar industry for the pharmaceutical giants who are - surprise surprise - behind the majority of anti-smoking groups. Also, i read somewhere that the anti-smoking legislation paves the way for giant international corporations to affect changes in the law of sovereign countries that serves their interests under the guise of public health. So the W.H.O. is like a foot in the door for corporate rule. I haven't explained that too well, but you get the jist?

[tb303]

Tobacco losses

But not everyone believes that tobacco is for the economic good.

"Tobacco not only kills people, it also saps national treasuries," says the World Health Organisation.

It believes that the cost of smoking-related health care far outweighs the other financial benefits.

Indeed, the World Bank says tobacco actually results in a global net loss of US $200bn per year. About one third of these losses are suffered in the developing world

There..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/459157.stm

So, if a UK smoker is taxed at 77%, for say 10 years at let's say £5 a packet, and smokes 20 a day, that's over £14,000 paid in tax.

Do you really think the average smoker requiring NHS treatment gets that kind of money spent on them?

Also, when you consider the amount of smokers who never use NHS services, then your idea that: If you take all the tax from a smoker over his/her lifetime and add it up it comes to less than what the NHS pays out on average over a smokers life for smoking realted illness is complete bollocks mate.

[daveybpl]

I'm currently a social smoker, was full time for years but still have a few on a night out whilst drinking.

Gives you have really bad breath, makes your clothes stink and is terrible for the complection.

As for physic/siritual benifits, well there's plenty of better options available

[ichi wa zen]

Smoking is good for your enemies who cant wait to see you die!

[synergy777]

smoking is good to see laser traps as someone said, lol

[blokey]

So, if a UK smoker is taxed at 77%, for say 10 years at let's say £5 a packet, and smokes 20 a day, that's over £14,000 paid in tax.

Do you really think the average smoker requiring NHS treatment gets that kind of money spent on them?

Also, when you consider the amount of smokers who never use NHS services, then your idea that: is complete bollocks mate.

Of course your simple mathematics proves the World Health Organisation wrong...

Oh and I forgot they are the NWO so they will be fiddling the figures..

Dumbass

[sir nob jerkoff]

I wrote this about passive smoking a while ago when the smoking ban came into effect in Scotland..

It has been noted by several reputable sources including Prof. Sir Richard Droll (the first scientist to establish a link between lung cancer and primary smoking) and the World Health Organisation that no real conclusive scientific evidence exists which proves any significantly harmful effects from passive smoking on health.
Anti-smoking activists only cite research which reflects their personal bias and avoid any mention whatsoever of the many studies which negate their opinions. Statistical evidence against passive smoking also fails to withstand scrutiny, as was evident in several court rulings.

"It is a global phenomenon of spin based on selective research. In 1996, a U.S. federal court ruled the American Environmental Protection Agency had departed from good statistical practice, resorting to selectivity in fabricating a case against passive smoking. The same fate befell the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia in 1997, overruled by a federal court there." Source.
The following year, the World Health Organisation (WHO) took a similar tumble. WHO claimed that non-smokers consistently breathing other people's smoke were subjecting themselves to a 16-17% increased risk of lung cancer. Cue panic in the streets! The flaw, however, was that the estimated risk of a non-smoker contracting lung cancer had been estimated at 0.01%, so a 17% increase on 0.01% meant that the findings of this seven year study - as the WHO conceded - were not "statistically significant".

Positive research which dismissed the health risks, such as the Swedish study by toxicologist Professor Robert Nilsson which found that non-smokers consumed between one cigarette a week to two cigarettes a year, featured in medical journals but never found their way into mainstream media. The latter were more inclined to publicise the sensational sounding claims made by anti-smoking groups, many of whom had dubious connections and/or motivations.
Many were funded entirely - or were set up by - the very companies (international pharmaceutical giants such as Glaxo Wellcome and Smith Kline Beecham) who stand to make the biggest financial gains in what is now a multi-billion dollar industry producing smokeless nicotine delivery systems such as patches, inhalers and gum.
Indeed, the influence of these corporate giants is not only limited to our media. The pharmaceutical industry is known to have spent around £2 billion on hundreds of thousands of events attended by doctors. In the United States they donate more money to politicians and political parties than any other corporate entity and employ lobbyists to influence politicians. Such a rich and powerful industry, capable of spreading its' influence into so many areas of life - from schools and doctors to media, governments and the United Nations - is a formidable force, the effects of which on our lives should not be underestimated. In fact, legislation which prohibits the owner of a bar permitting a legal activity on their private property based on unreliable science might suggest that the government and politicians responsible are merely acting as pawns for big industry. And considering it is big industry which is primarily responsible for the extremely high levels of air pollution which is a proven significant cause of lung cancer (as well as a host of other maladies) there may be even greater amounts of wealth and power at stake than initially meets the eye. Imposing stricter (and costlier) regulations on industry would result in a huge drop in profits.
Statistics from 'The Economist' (World in Figures 1997 edition) showed that despite the number of smokers in North America decreasing by 50% in the last thirty years, lung cancer rates had greatly increased - even among non-smokers.
The country with the longest life expectancy in the world was Japan...which is also the second heaviest smoking nation in the world. It also happened to be last in the list for significant levels of pollution.
In conclusion, i believe that through concerted media campaigns (that amount to nothing short of propaganda) smokers are being scapegoated for the sins of major international corporations whose long reaching and powerful tentacles are now visibly evident in all our lives. It seems that wherever there is great power and wealth, there inevitably exists greed and corruption. And unless we guard against being led by fearful, knee-jerk reactions to such emotionally charged triggers as "children" and "cancer" (backed up by impressive sounding data which on closer inspection holds not a drop of water), we stand to be ruthlessly manipulated by the malignant self-interest of giant, international corporate entities.

**********************

On the hazards of first hand smoking, i would agree with the original poster that a lot of the damage will be a result of the highly toxic additives mainstream tobacco companies add to their product. Smoking additive free tobacco like American Spirit - in moderation - is unlikely to be very harmful. I know of a Chinese doctor/acupuncturist who smokes an occasional cigarette.

World’s oldest man smokes for 76 years and celebrates his 115th birthday (http://english.pravda.ru/society/stories/22-08-2006/84031-oldest-man-0)

It is worthy of note that Mercado was an avid smoker. He was smoking for 76 years and quit when he turned 90.

Meet the Man Ready to Become World's Oldest Marathon Runner (http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=4385601&page=1)
Buster Martin is an unlikely candidate to set a marathon record. He drinks beer, smokes cigarettes and stays out late. And he's 101.


Also, the pharmaceutical companies will make more billions from anti-stress medications as smoking is an effective way of consciously chanelling stress. Stress is one of the main causes of ill health.

[tb303]

Of course your simple mathematics proves the World Health Organisation wrong...

Oh and I forgot they are the NWO so they will be fiddling the figures..

Dumbass

Fuck the WHO, prove the mathematics wrong with some evidence seeing as you're the one claiming to have done the research.

And don't dumbass me.

[blokey]

And don't dumbass me.

Too late...DUMBASS

[tb303]

Too late...DUMBASS

Think I'll smoke a tab while I'm waiting...

[astro zombie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86lYG1V2-n4&feature=related

:)

[sir nob jerkoff]

Too late...DUMBASS

Top tip: If you're going to stoop to calling people derogatory names intended to belittle their intelligence, its best not to sound like a thick American GI when you do it. ;)

[astro zombie]

Non-smokers die every single day.

What is the big deal with smoking? If you wanna smoke, smoke. If you don't, don't. Inhaling ANY kind of smoke into your lungs on a daily basis isn't helping your body out too much. But if you don't care, that's your choice. We are eternal spirits anyway, if you have a lack of concern with how long you stay on this planet with the body you have now, then go nuts.

[tb303]

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=279613#post279613

'It is far better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt'

LMFAO!

[sir nob jerkoff]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v20/nursey/fags.jpg

[eternal_spirit]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v20/nursey/fags.jpg


:D

A fine figure of a man

http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/2359/bigweedjointbr3.jpg

[sir nob jerkoff]

:D

A fine figure of a man

http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/2359/bigweedjointbr3.jpg



No one has a patch on him! :cool:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/graphics/2006/02/16/hsmoking16patch.jpg

[anonymousoneuk]

:)I just want to add that i've expressed all i feel nessessary on this issue, i'm not asserting anything for definite, just presenting ideas for contemplation.

I don't really expect people to appreciate much of what i say here (on this forum) in general, it probably seems far out in many respects to some users, some may just simply emotionly switch off.

My hope is that as people develop their own deeper understandings of their own realities maybe some of the things i suggest will fall into place, maybe not, but if one believes they have some potensially accurate and helpful information, to not attempt to share because people may not respect your ideas, is not the highest spiritual decision to make.

On the other side of the coin, to attempt to share what one knows out of desire for others to conform to your views, for whatever reason is also very spiritually low.

I feel this is just common sence and i find spirituality in large part just breaks down into common sense to respect one another.

Peace and Bless :)

P.s the above "wisdom" applies to the above post.

[infinitethoughts]

Inhaling Sacred Tobacco Smoke ?

Who would you believe?


A culture that has revered and honored the Earth for thousands of years, or;

A culture that in a short 80 years is managing to rape and pillage the Earth?
The real issue is not that they are lying about tobacco and second hand smoke, the real issue is Why. (http://conspiracycentral.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/smoking-is-good-for-you/)

[wildhorse]

Inhaling Sacred Tobacco Smoke ?

Who would you believe?


A culture that has revered and honored the Earth for thousands of years, or;

A culture that in a short 80 years is managing to rape and pillage the Earth?
The real issue is not that they are lying about tobacco and second hand smoke, the real issue is Why. (http://conspiracycentral.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/smoking-is-good-for-you/)

likin your food thoughtage there ;)

[pegcityevolve]

Hate to burst all the smokers bubbles, but smoking really is bad for you no matter how hard you try and rationalise.

Now, lets get one thing straight here,
a) I cant stand the UK's orwellian government and wouldnt support them if they offered me money
b) I smoked "professionally" for 18 years (morning noon and night, whilst working, driving , eating, anything - I could smoke for England - on average 25-30 a day.) - and I dont agree with the smoking ban.

Smoking is the biggest con trick and self imposed slavery that ever existed.
(dont worry , I dont mind if you smoke, i'm not a zealous convert - i dont think it should be banned, but i do think that the book I mention below should be given away with every pack of cigarettes).

Remember the first time you smoked and how disgusting it was (oh how you thought you looked impressive breathing fire !)

Remember, you had to force yourself to continue smoking, you had to learn to enjoy it.In a fairly short period of time, you got used to it and you actually convince yourself that you enjoy it (even though it is physically the same smelly act of breathing in smoke from burning leaves that it was that first time). And to this day, you believe (and you would spend hours convincing me that...) you enjoy it (been there , done that).

Its fantastic to lug down that first hit after you've gone all day without a ciggie isnt it.

Unfortunately, the "pleasure" you get *isnt* from the cigarette you're smoking.
Its from the relief of satisfying the craving driven by the nicotine withdrawal as a result of the last cigarette you smoked.

Every cigarette you "enjoy" is actually just a craving relief caused by the last one.

Someone recommended "The Easiway to give up smoking" by Alan Carr.
It cost 7 quid on amazon, I bought it and didnt even really want to give up smoking. Once I read it, I couldnt wait to give up. Its like flicking a switch in your head and turning off the desire to smoke. I was amazed how easy it was and how little the actual "withdrawal" was once you actually dont want to smoke.

Smoking really is a con trick.
Get the book, I thoroughly recommend it.

Just a shit shame that Alan Carr died of lung cancer - he certainly saved my life - I never even dared to really try and give up until I stumbled on his book almost by accident.

I gave up in sept 2002. Haven't had the slighted inclination to start smoking again since.I liked the first puff, of course it was all organic. What were you saying again? Maybe you had to force yourself. :)

[infidelyork]

The solid microscopic radioactive particle buries itself deep in the lung tissue, completely overwhelms the body’s limited reserves of vitamin B17

Vitamin B17 isn't a 'vitamin' and it isn't found in, or produced naturally by, the human body.

[infinitethoughts]

Get the book, I thoroughly recommend it.

Ahhhh yes...... books !
Thanks for reminder gugdav. ;)

"The War On Smokers And The Rise Of The Nanny State" by Theodore King.
http://www.iuniverse.com/Bookstore/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=SKU-000110740 (also available as an e-book)


Dr. William T. Whitby: The Smoking Scare De-bunked. (Free online book.)
http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/507927406-7466.html


Dr. William Campbell Douglas: Health Benefits of Tobacco.
http://www.amazon.com/Benefits-Tobacco-William-Campbell-Douglass/dp/9962636450


"Velvet Glove, Iron Fist: A History of Antismoking" by Christoper Snowdon.
http://www.velvetgloveironfist.com/index.php?page_id=1


Lauren A. Colby Author of In Defense of Smokers (Free online book.)
http://www.lcolby.com/


"Smoke Screens: The Truth About Tobacco" by Rich White.
http://smokescreens.org/


"Dissecting Antismokers' Brains" by Michael McFadden.
http://www.amazon.com/Dissecting-Antismokers-Brains-Michael-McFadden/dp/0974497908/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241953484&sr=8-1


"Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger: Materialism Out Of Control" by Vincent-Ricardo DiPierri
http://www.rampant-antismoking.com/

[tjohn]

I just posted this in another thread, but thought it worthy of it's own:

SMOKING IS NOT BAD FOR YOU.

There is only 1 brand of organic tabacco in the world, the only other way to get a healthy source of tabacco would be to grow your own.

Smoking has been regarded for millenia as a healing plant, in actually increases aerobic capacity by increasing heamoglobin levels in the blood Yes it does increase hemogobin I agree, yet no it does not increase aerobic capacity and the reason for the increased hemogobin, is because the hemogobin has CO2 in it which the body cannot use - so the body has to make more hemogobin in an attempt to get the oxygen it needs. This is one reason why heavy smokers get out of breath much sooner than non-smokers. Another reason is that the smoker's lungs are full of tar which reduces oxygen intake into the bloodstream.

And another thing - on average every 15 cigs we smoke causes at least one genetic mutation and whereas many mutations do not cause problems, some mutations cause cancer.

John
(a heavy smoker - trying to stop)

[mind1universe]

wow... two dissenting viewpoints right off the bat!

I've seen threads like this go on for 3 pages on this forum before anyone says WTF.

I personally compare smoking cigarettes to believing 911 was done by Muslim extremists with boxcutters. It takes so much self delusion to avoid the facts and continue on abusing yourself... it also takes a kind of "awakening" to free yourself from the mental and behavior loop that those beliefs put you in.


Also.... LMFAO @ American Spirits being the only organic tobacco company in the world... who could take a post seriously with simple and blatant errors such as that!



I was seriously going to post this!!

But now that you made the point. Its done! :)

[darkrue]

Whether smoking is physically bad or not, there's no denying the mental pick me up it can give. Anything that lifts the spirits for even a little while can't be all *that* bad...in my opinion, of course. Happiness is always good for a body. :)

I actually quit smoking 10 years ago, but started up again not too long ago. heh. Oh well. I will quit again when I decide to. For now, the three or four cigs I have a day make me feel happy and relaxed. It's my me time, darnit!

I just roll my own. Found a decent all natural tobacco and I use all natural filters. It's much cheaper and probably a little bit healthier that way.

[infinitethoughts]

To the Posters that are desperately trying to get us to believe smoking an ancient natural Plant is bad for us:

Lemme get this straight:

I'm supposed to believe a Methodology (Entire News media owned by only 5 Corporations.....)

I'm supposed to believe a Methodology (Entire Modern Medical System owned by Pharmaceutical Drug makers....)


Sorry, I'm not a pigeon, but rather a Live Human Being that has the ability to think for myself.

Now if you wanna be a pigeon, that's another thing.....

[infinitethoughts]

And it goes on....

The "putzes" that be (TPTB)...poison:

The air we breathe.
The water we drink.
The food we eat.
The medicines we use.
The news we see.
The stories we read.
The movies we watch.

....and I'm supposed to blindly believe these assholes ?!

Nahh. I don't think so.