180 replies to this topic

[YOLF]

someone had explained to me that tobacco contains MAOIs that increase the addiction. This stuff isn't in ecigs and I always felt that they were missing something before I quit cold turkey. Snus does sound like a better option to me, though I've never tried it. My favorite Idea is getting rid of them altogether. I like how Bhutan has made smoking, sale, and cultivation of tobacco illegal. Australia is trying to prevent anyone born after 2000 from being able to buy cigarettes. These are the best solutions I've seen enacted so far. The only healthy smoker is a non-smoker

[Adamzski]

It is amazing, I had not heard of the ban on smoking for people born after 2000. It will be in Tasmania first but I am sure most of AU will go this far and further.

Ecigs worked for me in one 4 month period, then I fell back into smoking and ecigs didnt do much for me for about a year. My life was fairly shite at that time so I thing the extra antidepressants in cig smoke was needed. These days I have been back on the ecigs for close to 3 months. recently I couldnt get some spare parts so /I smoked for a week then got straight back into the ecigs once I had a working unit again.

People really need to try a few different flavored e-liquids and delivery systems, many buy a second rate ecig and fill it with tobacco flavoured juice. Not the way to go. Buy an expensive day long lasting battery, latest style of cartomizer and confectionary, coffee or fruit flavoured juice.

[YOLF]

I tried a few of each type of ecig without any luck. It just didn't work, the antidepressants are two addictive. Bought some good name brand stuff, and the disposable real battery type disposable ecigs and none of them gave me complete satiety and trying to "smoke" enough of them to get it (wasn't aware of the MAOI component at the time) just gave me headaches in the back of my neck.

I hope we will also ban cigarettes like in Tasmania. Of course this method relies on people dieing to accomplish the goal, but it's the best thing for the later generations. Perhaps the addition of a voluntary lifetime license tag to "opt out" of smoking rights is in order. Of course this would require that every ID be checked, but that should be happening already.

Edited by cryonicsculture, 02 April 2013 - 04:44 PM.

[Logic]

Inositol May Prevent Lung Cancer in Cigarette Smokers
http://www.naturalne...l#ixzz2PxAuNWCp

[dz93]

Seek out unaltered tobacco or grow it and roll your own. At least you'll get away from the hundreds of other anxiety causing chemicals and pesticides in cigarettes.

[Adamzski]

Pricing really helps as well. I went back to Sydney for 2 months over christmas and the $17 per pack I just was not prepared to pay... I did feel like a smoke at times but it is a bit of an investment in AU to smoke..
Here in Korea I am smoking 5 or so cigs per day, its only $2 per pack. I feel at the moment that I need cigarettes again.. but not enough to spend $17 per pack if that was the price.

[YOLF]

Don't go back to SK until you're sure you've been able to quit and then get a new apartment when you go back. Throw out anything that can't be washed or call the equivalent of Serv Pro in SK to clean up. Being exposed to Tobacco in your environment makes you want to smoke, even if it's just residue in a car on a coat. Total elimination looks like it's becoming a reality for you. Take the extra steps and live longer.

[BLimitless]

I agree, I think the most important thing for a non smoker who wants to stay a non smoker is to stay far far away from tobacco in all its forms, no matter what. I hear that myelination is semi-permanent so it would take a very long time to reverse the imprint that nicotine addiction has left on the brain. This means that a former smoker is always primed and ready to dive right back into the addiction even after years of abstinence. Just like you can hop onto a bicycle and ride off even years after not cycling.



I am experimenting with ecigs and nebulisers right now. I have managed, using the ecig, to tone my cigarette intake to one a day. Strangely, the ecig delivering nicotine alone will satisfy the craving but also remove the desire for further nicotine itself whether in the form of a cigarette or as the ecig. I can entirely forget about smoking altogether during a day, which for an exclusive cigarette smoker is entirely unheard of. At present it appears to myself that ecigs seem to be the way forward in terms of harm reduction.


But this still leaves the question of removing tar and other accumulates from the lungs and body and actually REVERSING the damage induced by cigarettes. Turmeric, NAC, lots of fresh fruits and vegetables are my mainstay. But nebulised DMSO looks promising as an avenue of exploration. Ideally one would like to regain and improve their lung capacity to make it dominate even over life-long non-smoking athletes.

[Logic]

James Green Has some good info here:
http://greenray4ever...#SODIUMBUTYRATE

Smoking and Aging [Main Essay/Smoking, Ben Best/Smoking and Aging, Images/smoking and life expectancy; System One Smoking Impact Graphics; Links/smoking and aging, Images, Papers, Patents, Books, LibCong, Mortality Charts; Lung Cancer; COPD]: 25% of smokers live to 80, vs. 57% of non-smokers. NAC (N-acetyl-cysteine) reduces the carcinogenicity of tobacco smoke. Lung cancer is usually caused by carcinogens such as benzopyrene in cigarette smoke or in marijuana smoke. Note that Panax Ginseng has an anticancer effect on cancers induced with benzopyrene. Taurine, "an amino acid present in fish, is able to restore normal blood vessel function in smokers." (LEF). Nicotine from smoking constricts blood vessels and aggravates the effect of atherosclerotic plaque, increasing the likelihood of cardiovascular problems, heart attack, and stroke. See Lung Cancer, Heart Attack, Cardiology, Cardiovascular Disease, Stroke. See also Lecacheux M, Karila L, et al. (2009), Cognitive modifications associated with tobacco smoking, Presse Med Sept;38(9):1241-52. Also see Ray T, Maity PC, Banerjee S, et al. (2010), Vitamin C prevents cigarette smoke induced atherosclerosis in guinea pig model, Journal of Atherosclerosis and Thrombosis, 2010 Aug 31; 17(8):817-27.
<a name="CHRONICOBSTRUCTIVEPULMONARYDISEASE"> Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)
[Wikipedia, Links/Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Images, Video, Papers, Patents, Books, Amazon, LifeExtension; Essay/Smoking]. A typical result of smoking with inhalation that is a substantial cause of death. See Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease in Causes of Death in New York State, below.

Quercetin...opens up COPD-inflicted airways. It restores normal elasticity of lung tissue and reduces inflammation. Just as important, it reduces production of the protein-melting enzymes that dissolve alveolar walls, helping to retain the lungs' normal architecture and function." - Anne Buckley (2012), Quercetin: Broad-Spectrum Protection, Life Extension Magazine, September 2012. Bharani A, Ahirwar LK, Jain J (2004), Terminalia arjuna reverses impaired endothelial function in chronic smokers, Indian Heart Journal, 2004 Mar-Apr;56(2):123-8. See Arjuna

[YOLF]

Hmmm, well I know I have Taurine and maybe some Quercetin. Was taking a daily and some other supps that had panax in it. When taking supps, I also take 1 gram of C every day. Looks like I should have a small margin of protection over other non supplementing smokers. Still wish I never smoked and knew what it would be like to be an adult or even a teenager who was never a smoker. So how good are those Tengion lungs at breathing in case I need new ones some day? I was reading that their kidneys still needed alot of work.

Oh, and I read somewhere that T was good for preventing cancers, maybe even lung cancers.

[DePaw]

Smoking depletes selenium, so supplementing or eating a few brazil nuts will counter this effect.

[niner]

Smoking depletes selenium, so supplementing or eating a few brazil nuts will counter this effect.

Brazil nuts are not a very good way to get selenium, because the content is so variable. You can overdose pretty easily. They may also contain radium. I'd use a reasonable dose supplement, or just rely on multi which probably has enough.

[DePaw]

A Multivitamin quite likely won't have enough, as like I just said smoking depletes selenium, ie uses it up faster than normal non-smokers. So you need more than a non-smoker, more than the RDA. I would think 200ug is a good amount to take.

I've also read that vitamin C (ascorbic acid) is good a stopping smoking-related free-radical damage, when a few grams are taken a day.

 

Added by moderation - Vitamin C doses should be taken in 500 -1000mg and spaced out throughout the day and not exceed 4 grams. Excessive Vit C intake can also cause immune dependencies, so it's a habit you'll have to keep or at least be aware that you'll be more likely to get sick or have lowered immune responses for a time after discontinuing Vit C use. This applies to those taking 1 gram or more a day. Larger doses of C should also be taken with bioflavanoids to prevent damage to the eyes.

Edited by YOLF, 21 April 2015 - 03:35 AM.

[illuminatus104]

use a portable vaporizer? i use a magic flight launch box for various herbs and it doesn't seem to have a negative impact on lung capacity (just got done running 8 miles)

[Adamzski]

I am back in AU for a while and on the ecigs only, too expensive here.. I really wish it was $17 a pack everywhere.

[YOLF]

I am back in AU for a while and on the ecigs only, too expensive here.. I really wish it was $17 a pack everywhere.

Damn! But good going AU! There was a country that actually banned tobacco use altogether!

[Adamzski]

Im still smoking regualr cigs, back in Korea where everyone smokes and they are a few dollars a pac..

Thinking of getting a long filter/holder http://www.targard.com/benefits not one of these but there are some similar filters made localy.

http://item2.gmarket...igarette filter

Would you think that if you have to clean the gunk out of these every 5 cigarettes, then it would have to make smoking a little more healthy?

I initially thought of getting one of these to just get the cigarette smoke further away from my skin and eyes, I think that half of the skin aging that smokers have is to do with constantly dousing their faces with smoke and squinting from the smoke going in their eyes.

[BLimitless]

I wanted to make a simple convection tube and smoke tobacco via convection. One day. A simple hollow glass/steel tube, a coil, battery, push-to-make switch. No smoke, just pure convection resulting in on-the-fly steam distillation. Why this does not exist yet, I don't understand.


But to be honest I learnt something about tobacco such that I intend to never touch commercial tobacco again. It's a hypnotic plant. I am totally serious - that is the function of Tobacco, if you look at the shamanic traditions that is what it is used for. Well, imagine being *hypnotised* to smoke tobacco by tobacco companies. Imagine that this beautiful divine plant with its myriad spiritual/psychological uses is being held hostage worldwide by commercialisation. You can't just get tobacco for yourself in most of the world, it has to go through a profit-machine.



Plain obvious, yes. But this actually drastically alters the nature of the experience. Because the supply is not from its natural plucked-straight-off-the-tree but instead via a third party vendor, you create a sort of magnetic connection between yourself and the vendors, and this is less like a bar magnet and more like an industrial metal sorting magnet, and you're the scrap metal. Your thoughts are not simply just regarding where to next acquire the tobacco; Look a bit deeper: they revolve around who to next pay hours of your life to, in order to next get a fix. To ironically shorten your lifespan. It's compound self-disinterest. You see it as GetTobacco but it's actually =>PayMoney=>GetTobacco. Each time the behaviour is repeated, cha ching for someone else - not you! This method of marketing is straight black magic. It has hijacked your I-AM and embedded a profit-making virus straight into your forebrain. Give it some thought...



Tobacco is a divine entheogen by the way. As a tool, you can use it to go very deep into your own Self. You can use it to receive ideas from some remote place in the universe pointed to by Nikola Tesla. You can use it to cool down an angry situation, prevent a fight, to make and break friendships, all manner of potential ecstasies. The primary action of tobacco, especially when inhaled, is to amplify completely the intention held in the mind upon lighting up. You can make a wish and smoke up, and the nicotine will rush into your forebrain and the dopamine rush will rewire your reward system *instantly* towards the object of your intention. It's like setting a checkpoint in the mind. Think about how this works out for the tobacco companies! Ironically I used this facet of the experience to anchor my "cease smoking" intention. I told myself, no more smoking crap into your lungs.Drink tobacco tea, nothing wrong with tobacco, you haven't lost a thing, your friend is right by your side. Just not burning your friend to death and inhaling the cremations, tis all.


I think it's important to know truly that you have lost absolutely nothing, when ceasing the act of smoking. Protip: Vitamin C is the root cause of irritability/anxiety/stress/ITHURTSOHGODPLEASE. Buy yourself a few kilograms of citrus fruits and eat around 10 oranges or equivalent fruits a day for a while, frequency is much more important than dosage.



Well, if anyone has seen the Vice story on scopolamine mind control, that is something. But guess what, the world has seen mass mind control already, look no further!


Also I shall say one thing. It's not the tobacco at fault either. It's the very act of huffing tar into your lungs, that makes little sense. The ancients did not do this either, they cheek smoked and rarely if ever inhaled. Tobacco tea, seems like the real deal. If you're serious about harnessing the plant, that's where the road leads, truly. Smoking it is unjust to yourself and to the plant in many ways.

Thank you all for your brilliant contributions! This thread is quite a goldmine of information and just know that what time you have spent contributing is eternally glorious, the sheer number of people who will perhaps be seeking this information and so kind of you folks to collate it in one thread! This is humanity at its best, truly!

Edited by BLimitless, 28 September 2013 - 09:47 AM.

[kismet]

Funny how these smoking threads are always full of posts like this. One side (nightlight) argues using logic and scientific references, the other side (you and others) simply repeats the mantras. How does saying "Here's the deal; tobacco is bad for you" bring anything useful to the table? Just because you *say* it's bad for you doesn't make it so. That's the whole point of these threads. Somehow you seem to ignore all the science.

I used to think it obvious that smoking is unhealthy, but then, I'd never actually read any studies. Maybe it is unhealthy, but no one here certainly hasn't made an effort to prove it.

Nightlight has been called on it many times. We just do not have the time to do it over and over again. As far as the two relevant types of evidence are concerned:

He never mounted a successful argument against the epidemiology. It's always just babble.
The weight-loss inducing hamster experiments are not convincing, either. The claim that carcinogenesis could not be replicated in animals has been (recently?) proven wrong IIRC.

If you remind me or I do not forget, I may write a blog post about this topic later this year, e.g. about the animal models. Perhaps we'll see a mea culpa.

Edited by kismet, 29 October 2013 - 10:53 PM.

[Being Tesla]

I think that people who choose to defend smoking as possibly not being dangerous in terms of causing cancer, are the same people that will claim that OJ Simpson may not be guilty of murder. These are people who are simply looking to argue from the impossibly "couldn't be any less likely to be correct" perspective. They are the true sophists that argue the weaker point, just to prove that they are "well" informed, and can regurgitate meaningless aspects of scientific research. The point is simple: Even if smoking possibly (and I mean the smallest possiblity) doesn't cause cancer, there is still no reasonable arguement that it it is a good thing for anyone, and it certainly doesn't help emphezema and almost certainly causes that too.

Arguing against anyone that tries to defend smoking is just one of those things that I may have done or considered doing when I was younger, but I'm 30 years old now, and in the famous words of Danny Glover in Lethal Weapon 1, 2, 3, and 4, "I'm getting too old for this sh!t." Those people are mental cases, and they can smoke all they want to. They can form their own activist group, along with the people that don't believe that HIV causes AIDS, and spit in the face of good science. As long as 99 percent of the population consider them to be cranks, I'm ok with it. Ignorance will never win in the longterm against true science. It is the one fact of life that makes life more livable and acceptable for the logical/analytical/decision oriented person that I try to be every day I exist in this world. Just like the Church tried to keep science buried, we will always have our Newtons who will blast futile methodologies away, swatting them down like the pesky flies that they really are in spirit.

[Deep Thought]

A less dangerous MAO-b inhibitor.

Edited by Deep Thought, 30 October 2013 - 07:03 PM.

[JLL]

Funny how these smoking threads are always full of posts like this. One side (nightlight) argues using logic and scientific references, the other side (you and others) simply repeats the mantras. How does saying "Here's the deal; tobacco is bad for you" bring anything useful to the table? Just because you *say* it's bad for you doesn't make it so. That's the whole point of these threads. Somehow you seem to ignore all the science.

I used to think it obvious that smoking is unhealthy, but then, I'd never actually read any studies. Maybe it is unhealthy, but no one here certainly hasn't made an effort to prove it.

Nightlight has been called on it many times. We just do not have the time to do it over and over again. As far as the two relevant types of evidence are concerned:

He never mounted a successful argument against the epidemiology. It's always just babble.
The weight-loss inducing hamster experiments are not convincing, either. The claim that carcinogenesis could not be replicated in animals has been (recently?) proven wrong IIRC.

If you remind me or I do not forget, I may write a blog post about this topic later this year, e.g. about the animal models. Perhaps we'll see a mea culpa.

Called on it how? I've read the threads many times and I don't think anyone refuted his arguments.

I would have imagined you'd be the first one to point out that correlation is not causation.

[Adamzski]

I think that a lot of the smoking research and a lot of the reported research is done by people who hate the small and litter that smoking creates and even the people that smoke who they see as the lower levels of society junkies and the like.. but no one can say that smoking is not harmful.
Smoking could be made less harmful by regulating the industry, stopping them putting additives in and stopping them using the high nitros fertilizers. Also maybe by switching to charcoal filters.
There is still the fact that more people smoke in Japan but there are less lung cancers by far in Japan.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/11700268

I got some of these
The black in it is from smoking a single 1mg cigarette. I read on forums that these last about six 4mg cigarettes but only a single full strength cigarette.


Now if there is more tar coming out of a full strength cigarette, then it would have to be worse for you. But the anti smoking people try to convince people that low tar cigarettes are no better for you. They just want to stop any form of reduced risk or any form of smoking.

These filters reduce the ease of smoking so I am hoping that they help me quit but if they are stopping extra gunk going into my system then they should make it slightly less damaging.

[YOLF]

Japan benefits from high fish intake and also just likes to marginalize certain sectors of society. So if you smoke in Japan, your doctor might not bother to diagnose you with cancer (maybe?). Then there are also the old people who would be getting cancer... they would voluntarily die to avoid being a social burden. It may be that the Japanese want to press those who would smoke into the grave in this manner.

Then again, I don't think the Japanese are regular smokers, more like recreational users.

[Adamzski]

I have been to Japan several times and have many Japanese friends, they smoke like absolute crazy, girls and guys.. I was really surprised at how much the women smoke there, I am usually embarrassed to smoke one after another smokes in front of a girl but when you see a girl have 3 or 4 smokes in front of you then it feels ok hehe, I did read somewhere that there are double the number of smokers than the USA but may not be right. They do seem to smoke in a different way, they kind of all suck the smoke in a little harder than usual but really seem to blow the smoke out very strongly whereas many western people kind of let the smoke drift out of their mouths.

You could be right about cancer not being diagnosed but they are a rich country with a corporate health system like the states, there is also lot of working poor who might just die without going to the doctor. They are a very old population with the median age being 45 or so.

I did see or atleast I think I seen that lung cancer rates are lower all across Asia, our earlier industrialisation with diesel vehicles and coal fired power stations may have a lot to do with it.

Here is a world smoking map
http://www.washingto...tes-by-country/

Here is some probably not that good lung cancer death rates
http://www.worldlife...ers/by-country/

If smoking was such a death sentence then I would expect those heavier smoking countries to be right at the top of that list.

[YOLF]

The smoking behavior strikes me as suspicious. It's probably people checking you out to see what you're in their country for. People I know who smoke the way you described are people trying to act deliberate about smoking as a social tactic. It's unfortunate that their "background check" changes the impressions of people and is harmful to health.

[Adamzski]

This says they do smoke much more than Americans and Australians http://www.washingto...tes-by-country/ I have even known many Japanese in Australia and they are definatly a hard smoking people.

From the other link I posted it seems that Australia has a very similar rate of smoking to the UK, we are a multicultural country but are mostly descendants of the UK's exported scum. Just a few generations ago we were the same people. The UK has a much higher cancer rate.

The USA has a much higher lung cancer rate http://www.wcrf.org/..._statistics.php
In AU we have universal health care, if you are an alco in the gutter coughing blood up then they will spend unlimited cash to detect and treat cancer. There must be some reason for the much higher lung cancer rates in the states. It looks like 45/1000 people in the states and 25/1000 people in AU. That is a huge difference.

Smoking over the years
http://www.cdc.gov/m...ml/mm4843a2.htm
vs
http://www.tobaccoin..._Prevalence.pdf

in 1975 45% of AU males and US males smoked same

[YOLF]

Oh, duh! How did I miss that... The laws for advertising smoking are different in Japan. Ever see clerks? Remember the Chuley's gum scene? That's sorta like the tobacco companies and how they market cigarettes. They can even be doing it through a cooperative organization so it doesn't matter which brand you choose to smoke. They just write reports. In fact, they may still even be able to do it in the US. I remember coming across a job posting like this where that would have been my responsibility a while back. The "Hard" smokers you know are getting a stipend to smoke in front of your and be your friend to reinforce your smoking habit. I kid you not and I may have even mentioned it earlier in this thread. In the developing world where the evil tobacco companies have fewer restraints may even be breeding grounds for conditioned marketers if they target English speaking people with skills marketable in the US or other developed countries with greater restraints.

It's not all that hard to create a "Manchurian Marketing Candidate," especially if you have deep pockets and enough employees in the know to find the find the right people.

We should really exterminate tobacco companies, they can't be trusted to behave in a globalized market.

[Adamzski]

LOL ok my almost multi decade long friendships with some Japanese people who were sent to Australia to befriend me and spread the good tobacco words may just be scams.

I do see how some countries may have strong enough tobacco companies that could lean on the people who put the cancer figures out but Japan is not one of those, Japan comes in at number 7 on http://transparency.org/ while the land of the free is at 17.

[YOLF]

Ask yourself this, could this person be farming you for network connections while living a perfectly normal life and actually be a real friend? Or perhaps he's the Manchurian Marketing Candidate and doesn't know he's doing it. Look at your interpersonal culture, strip it apart, reverse engineer it, and figure out where the source of your personal smoking culture comes from. It's advertising or person to person marketing.

If I'm at a bar surrounded by women and success and I'm sucking down Newports real cool like, or if I even just have alot of friends around me so that I'm getting alot of attention and creating social status, some will want to be like I am and will instinctively copy my behaviors and this crowd of people will reinforce it until it becomes self sustaining culture. It's the seed of viral marketing and the like that you're dealing with. Your friends don't have to know you, but they may all be familiar with a marketing message that brings them together and results in reinforcement.