What's the point of smoking?

[Kizzume]

There's another forum where someone talked about MISSING the flavor of cigarettes. He said that it tasted good, and that entire concept just boggles my mind, so I asked this and thought this was the appropriate thread to ask the same thing here, since the thread is about why people started to smoke.

If you think cigarettes taste good:

What in the world is "good" about the flavor of cigarettes? Just to see if I could taste anything pleasurable to see what people are talking about "MY brand tastes much better than THAT brand", at different times I've taken a couple puffs before on a Marlboro, a Winston, a GPC, a Camel, and some menthol brand that only makes menthol (I can't remember which one), and as I could tell slight differences between them, it was generally a god-awful flat-out ashtray flavor that seems very similar to the second-hand version, with the exception of the menthol one that had a slightly-different afterflavor.

Is this "good" in the sense of when people test really and truly stinky cheese, or really bitter wines, or really bitter beers, to where it's an acquired thing, or was this flavor something that you enjoyed the first time you did it?

If it was the first time you did it, please enlighten the people who do not understand as to what it is you LIKE about the flavor--what does the flavor remind you of?

[Kizzume]

Quote by: Technosoul Here is another experiment utube video - smoking vs science - Google Search Most of you would think smoking is real bad because of the tar stain on the tissue. But notice, if the smoke is inhaled into the lungs you get more brown stain then if you kept the smoke in the mouth. This might be evidence that the lungs were already poluted due to breathing air polution from another source.

Isn't that quite a stretch?

If tar from the cigarette did stick in the lungs how come you get more stain by inhaling?

I don't know, maybe because the more smoke, the more stain, the more stain, the more stain, the more stain.

You should get less from a scientific point of view if the smoke is sticking in the lungs and not being breathed out.

Is this one of those realities when up is down and down is sideways and sideways is a wormhole to a place somewhere in southeast Asia? What kind of science suggests that when there should be more of something, there should actually be less of it? Please post more on the subject of the science of a substance disappearing the more of that substance that gets accumulated. Imagine the kinds of new cleaning technologies that could be made from that kind of concept. Wow :) :rolleyes:

Also (lacking from the experiment) what would happen if you breathed on the tissue and we not smoking?

????

the experiment showed that you can use smoking to get rid of more polution from the lungs then you put into the lungs. Which would suggest that smoking is good. The smoke acturally collects polution already in your lungs so you can exhale it with the smoke.

It still collects and accumulates on the lungs unless it was done on such a seldom basis that it was if the person wasn't even smoking at all, like one cigarette a week, or once a month or something.

[Hurt]

Quote by: Kizzume There's another forum where someone talked about MISSING the flavor of cigarettes. He said that it tasted good, and that entire concept just boggles my mind, so I asked this and thought this was the appropriate thread to ask the same thing here, since the thread is about why people started to smoke. If you think cigarettes taste good: What in the world is "good" about the flavor of cigarettes? Just to see if I could taste anything pleasurable to see what people are talking about "MY brand tastes much better than THAT brand", at different times I've taken a couple puffs before on a Marlboro, a Winston, a GPC, a Camel, and some menthol brand that only makes menthol (I can't remember which one), and as I could tell slight differences between them, it was generally a god-awful flat-out ashtray flavor that seems very similar to the second-hand version, with the exception of the menthol one that had a slightly-different afterflavor. Is this "good" in the sense of when people test really and truly stinky cheese, or really bitter wines, or really bitter beers, to where it's an acquired thing, or was this flavor something that you enjoyed the first time you did it? If it was the first time you did it, please enlighten the people who do not understand as to what it is you LIKE about the flavor--what does the flavor remind you of?

I think it'd be good to some people purely because of personal preference, though I don't think that would be the main reason people like smoking. I imagine it triggers endorphin release through the fact that you are taking in nicotine that is addictive. I'd guess it be something similar to a sexual drive.. it's something that would make you feel good if you satisfy?

[Technosoul]

I personally do not like the "taste" of filtered cigarettes, expecially lights.

Not sure what the "taste" thing is really about. It is not like eating candy or drinking beer. It is more about the impact or the sensation then flavor. Which is difficult to explain.

Yet I see tobacco companies advertising flavor, or "that it tastes good like a cigarette should", etc.

Once I got a pack made in India and I did not like the taste it made, so now I make sure they are made in the USA or South America. (not Mexico). Some climates are better suited for growing and ageing tobacco, same with wine, and coffee, in my viewpoint. But that might just be due to the traditions I grew up with relative to advertising. Our country has been growing and making tobacco products as far back as the George Washington days. Tobacco and lumber was our number one export item in the early days when we were mostly close to the east coast. Stuff made from hemp plants, and furs that we traded indians for became another export that helped to get America on it's feet and running. As we started to head westward we got into cotton, corn, wheat, and even furniture making, but those things were mostly sold within our own country.

We should have the tobacco plant on our coins instead of the bald eagle, Because that was the product that saved our ass economically when America was just getting started as an exporter and importer. Yes, the indians gave us the turkey, but their gift of tobacco is what really gave us our first taste of success. I would propose that we have a big smoke out every Thanksgiving Day so we can remember our great American heritage as tobacco farmers.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Technosoul But notice, if the smoke is inhaled into the lungs you get more brown stain then if you kept the smoke in the mouth.

That's probably cause you've got a lot of tar in there from previous cigarettes. People who smoke get really black lungs. The lungs do clean themselves, but it's a very slow process, whereas the benefits to quitting are almost immediate on the heart.

This might be evidence that the lungs were already poluted due to breathing air polution from another source. If tar from the cigarette did stick in the lungs how come you get more stain by inhaling? You should get less from a scientific point of view if the smoke is sticking in the lungs and not being breathed out.

Might is the key word here. How about it's unlikely the lungs were polluted so gravely from other sources?

Also (lacking from the experiment) what would happen if you breathed on the tissue and we not smoking?

It would be clean is my guess. I did it, and mine was clean.

the experiment showed that you can use smoking to get rid of more polution from the lungs then you put into the lungs. Which would suggest that smoking is good. The smoke acturally collects polution already in your lungs so you can exhale it with the smoke.

The experiment is showing the tar coming out from the cigarette smoke not other pollutants already in your lungs. You're grasping at straws. Wake up and admit that cigarettes are the main cause of lung cancer. People who don't smoke don't get it nearly as often. Why would that be? It's not from other pollutants, it's from the cigarettes.

Don't forget if you do acquire cancer that it does spread, so a non-smoker could have cancer in the lungs, which is usually one of the last places it goes before it kills you.

http://www.mesothelioma-lung-cancer....cer-photo.html

http://youtube.com/watch?v=TtKchm4KyVY&feature=related

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Kizzume There's another forum where someone talked about MISSING the flavor of cigarettes. He said that it tasted good, and that entire concept just boggles my mind, so I asked this and thought this was the appropriate thread to ask the same thing here, since the thread is about why people started to smoke. If you think cigarettes taste good: What in the world is "good" about the flavor of cigarettes? Just to see if I could taste anything pleasurable to see what people are talking about "MY brand tastes much better than THAT brand", at different times I've taken a couple puffs before on a Marlboro, a Winston, a GPC, a Camel, and some menthol brand that only makes menthol (I can't remember which one), and as I could tell slight differences between them, it was generally a god-awful flat-out ashtray flavor that seems very similar to the second-hand version, with the exception of the menthol one that had a slightly-different afterflavor. Is this "good" in the sense of when people test really and truly stinky cheese, or really bitter wines, or really bitter beers, to where it's an acquired thing, or was this flavor something that you enjoyed the first time you did it? If it was the first time you did it, please enlighten the people who do not understand as to what it is you LIKE about the flavor--what does the flavor remind you of?

You get used to what you are smoking and over time that's what "tastes" best. You can obviously acquire tastes for most any brand if you give it time. The nicotine is what you crave mostly, so most smokers in a bind will smoke whatever they can get their hands on.

Really, I don't think any of them actually taste good. I liked the smell of the smoke at times, but that was probably psychological.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe That's probably cause you've got a lot of tar in there from previous cigarettes. People who smoke get really black lungs. The lungs do clean themselves, but it's a very slow process, whereas the benefits to quitting are almost immediate on the heart. Might is the key word here. How about it's unlikely the lungs were polluted so gravely from other sources? It would be clean is my guess. I did it, and mine was clean. The experiment is showing the tar coming out from the cigarette smoke not other pollutants already in your lungs. You're grasping at straws. Wake up and admit that cigarettes are the main cause of lung cancer. People who don't smoke don't get it nearly as often. Why would that be? It's not from other pollutants, it's from the cigarettes. Don't forget if you do acquire cancer that it does spread, so a non-smoker could have cancer in the lungs, which is usually one of the last places it goes before it kills you. Cancer - lung cancer pictures include diseased lung cancer photos YouTube - Tar Extracted from 400 smokes

His getto science did not say if he was a former smoker or not. So we cannot really determine anything about the results he claimed. I did make any brown spot when breathing through a tissue eather, when in-between smoking a cigarette. So apparently the smoke inhaled can collect pollution already in the lungs and help to exspell it, which would be handy if you live in the city with lots of smog.

A better test would be to smoke something that does not contain tobacco to see if if non-tar smoke can exspell polution from the lungs, perhaps indian sage or pot. And then compare the results to cigarette smoke.

However stain is just coloring, if you drink cranberry juice you can get stains, that does not determine that it is unhealthy.

You can become a redneck by gettng exposed to the sun, that does not mean you are more likely to be unhealthy, stain might give something white some color but how do you link that to being healthy or not? Only coloring caused by decay would represent something relative. If you turn pale it might be a sign to call the Doc. For color to be a relative concern it must be caused by an actual disease.

[Anmon]

[=Technosoul;482521]First of all we have no proof based on real science that smoking is a major health hazard.

Are you serious?

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Technosoul His getto science did not say if he was a former smoker or not. So we cannot really determine anything about the results he claimed. I did make any brown spot when breathing through a tissue eather, when in-between smoking a cigarette. So apparently the smoke inhaled can collect pollution already in the lungs and help to exspell it, which would be handy if you live in the city with lots of smog.

This site shows a city dweller's lung and a smoker's lung. There's an appreciable difference. Fact is the tests have been done. There's conclusive evidence that cigarettes cause cancer.

http://whyquit.com/joel/Joel_02_17_smoke_in_lung.html

However stain is just coloring, if you drink cranberry juice you can get stains, that does not determine that it is unhealthy.

Tar is sticky and kills the cilia which are the lungs method of self-cleaning.

You can become a redneck by gettng exposed to the sun, that does not mean you are more likely to be unhealthy, stain might give something white some color but how do you link that to being healthy or not? Only coloring caused by decay would represent something relative. If you turn pale it might be a sign to call the Doc. For color to be a relative concern it must be caused by an actual disease.

In the case of the lungs they are damaged more intensely from the smoke, just like too much sun damages the skin. The lungs are a major organ that need to be treated with care. Avoiding cigarette smoke will greatly improve your chances of living a healthier life.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Anmon Are you serious?

To find out you would need to read all my postings I made in this thread and one on banning cigarettes. (if it is really worth all your time to do that?).

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe This site shows a city dweller's lung and a smoker's lung. There's an appreciable difference. Fact is the tests have been done. There's conclusive evidence that cigarettes cause cancer. Joel's Library - Smoking's Impact on the Lungs Tar is sticky and kills the cilia which are the lungs method of self-cleaning. In the case of the lungs they are damaged more intensely from the smoke, just like too much sun damages the skin. The lungs are a major organ that need to be treated with care. Avoiding cigarette smoke will greatly improve your chances of living a healthier life.

I am not going to look at some ugly photos of lungs, they showed me those photos back in highschool in 1956. This is why they put red dye in the hamburger meat you buy at the store, so it will not look spoiled or brown, because we think certain colors are "bad". To clean the cilia just eat one cup of veggie greens everyday. Check out health-diet pages to find out which greens are the best. Or that book about preventing cancer with a good diet.

If you grew up not wearing clothing like some native peoples do then the sun would not damage the skin. You only get a sunburn when you are not used to being out in the sun all the time. (or when harmfull rays get though a ozone hole which would not be the case if it were not for fossil fuels). Normal rays filtered by the ozone layer are okay.

History of the word "tar". hmm? Did the earth get cancer from all that tar which we now use for fuel?

Tar Sand - MSN Encarta

If you are worried about tar then just use a filter that really works. Athough not provided by tobacco companies we do have such technology for concerned smokers.

DON'T QUIT SMOKING TAR & NIC OUT - WHOLESALE 10 PACKS! - eBay (item 110126972896 end time May-07-08 21:07:46 PDT)

So.... problem solved.

[Technosoul]

I believe I have covered most of the things I could say about smoking and health if someone wants to take the time to review the whole thread in detail.

So unless someone has something really NEW to add (other in unconfirmed claims) I am going to bow out of further debating so I can give attention to other topics.

[gela]

Then you might admit that 8% chance is a long ways from being a 100 percent proof of a link statistically between smoking and cancer.

8% is nearly 1 in 10 (only 2 percent off). Its also 8 times more then a non smoker.

This is the foundation of my argument. The study did not go far enough to find out the relationship of stress and cancer.

There has been studies into the link between stress and cancer. We have already been through this.
I suppose its a coincidence that these guys get cancer in their lungs - where they breath in all the smoke then?
No it must be the stress.

Your reasoning is completely illogical.

Those stats must likewise be collected with an actural understanding of the difference between responding to stress correctly or incorrectly. Which knowledge is outside of the qualifications of someone trained in epidemiology only. Point I just made - you've got a long ways to go baby, before all the evidence is in the pot, in order to give people dependable proof.

There is pathological proof that smoking contributes to lung cancer.
You chose to write off that with far fetched illogical reasoning aswell.
Don't call me baby.

Example: If someone started smoking due to peer pressure then that is strong evidence they cannot deal with low level stress, they become victims of peer pressure (aka - stress).

Peer pressure is also known as stress? Since when?

Btw, smoking wasn't even about peer pressure when early smokers picked it up. There was no reason for them to not want to smoke.

The stats stay the same with and without peer pressure, adding evidence non-stress case.


Basic summary of my point.
Despite what you may believe, you are not the first to come up with this 'stress' idea.
It has already been studied.
The Cancer Council New South Wales :: Stress and Cancer Fact Sheet

There is a 'mabe' over the link between stress and breast cancer. This is logical because breat cancer is caused by hormones, and stress effects hormones.
Stress has nothing to do with your lungs.
But smoking does. Coincidence?
Smoking is the logical, reasonable, explanation.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gela 8% is nearly 1 in 10 (only 2 percent off). Its also 8 times more then a non smoker. There has been studies into the link between stress and cancer. We have already been through this. I suppose its a coincidence that these guys get cancer in their lungs - where they breath in all the smoke then? No it must be the stress. Your reasoning is completely illogical. There is pathological proof that smoking contributes to lung cancer. You chose to write off that with far fetched illogical reasoning aswell. Don't call me baby. Peer pressure is also known as stress? Since when? Btw, smoking wasn't even about peer pressure when early smokers picked it up. There was no reason for them to not want to smoke. The stats stay the same with and without peer pressure, adding evidence non-stress case. Basic summary of my point. Despite what you may believe, you are not the first to come up with this 'stress' idea. It has already been studied. The Cancer Council New South Wales :: Stress and Cancer Fact Sheet There is a 'mabe' over the link between stress and breast cancer. This is logical because breat cancer is caused by hormones, and stress effects hormones. Stress has nothing to do with your lungs. But smoking does. Coincidence? Smoking is the logical, reasonable, explanation.

If breast cancer is directly linked to stress then it would be logical to comprehend that stress is a source factor for other kinds of cancer.

Speaking in particular about emotional & mental stress and not physical stress.

Emotionally generated energy is simular to radeoactive energy or energy from the sun, when we respond improperly to our environment and other people we generate emotions that become negative energy in the body, that energy is called fear or anger. Often people surpress that energy rather then acting it out, because it is unlawful to kill someone, and so that energy builds up and seeks a form of expressing anger by attacking something (etc.). Because we keep more then we express that energy then attacks the cells, or organs in the body, resulting sometimes as a disease called cancer, as well as causing norrmal functons to miss-behave and then our body is out of balance and things go haywire in a non-logical manner. aka - cancer and other diseases.

You cannot really discover that with epidemology because they deal mainly in statistics and the average person really is unaware that they are responding to situations in the wrong way, because they are brainwashed into thinking that getting mad or being afraid is perfectly normal behaviorism. If you do not express it outwardly then it is expressed inwardly via attacking our own body in a distructive way.
Distroying cells and the normalities of how we produce harmones and so forth.

I know this. Now those who read this know it also. Anyone who wishes to be in denial of this logical truism will not find a cure for that problem.

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

I did not really call you a baby but was doing a fun spin-off of a famious cigaretted advertisment "you've come a long way baby".

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

I never said that it was just a coincidence. I said that smoking is due to stress and that disease is due to stress - they both share the same orgin of motivation. Which is why more people with stress related illnesses also smoke, and in turn, why the stats showed that smoking and disease have something in common, the common denominator is the kinds of stress that upsets people emotionally and mentally, which then also upsets the activities of the physical body.


I conducted a poll here at Volconvo which demonstrated that smoking is related to how people deal with stress in order to relax. I got my own stats to back up my explanation.

[gela]

Your explanation of cancer and stress still doesn't specifically target the lungs.
This must mean that cancer throughout the body can be caused by stress in the same way.
However, no link was found between any cancer and stress; except for breast cancer.

For your theory to be true, smokers would have to have an equal chance of getting cancer anywhere throughout their body. However they don't; they tend to get cancer in their lungs.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Technosoul I am not going to look at some ugly photos of lungs, they showed me those photos back in highschool in 1956. This is why they put red dye in the hamburger meat you buy at the store, so it will not look spoiled or brown, because we think certain colors are "bad". To clean the cilia just eat one cup of veggie greens everyday. Check out health-diet pages to find out which greens are the best. Or that book about preventing cancer with a good diet.

It wasn't just the photos; the guy had a lot of good advice in there, and truisms.
I looked for greens and vitamin diets, and didn't find anything but stuff you had to buy. I always took extra beta carotene, and vitamin C and E when I smoked, but they now say extra beta carotene causes cancer, so who knows. I'd take the extra C and possibly E, but not too much just a little boost.

If you grew up not wearing clothing like some native peoples do then the sun would not damage the skin. You only get a sunburn when you are not used to being out in the sun all the time. (or when harmfull rays get though a ozone hole which would not be the case if it were not for fossil fuels). Normal rays filtered by the ozone layer are okay.

Most natives probably don't live long, so comparing them to us doesn't really say much.

History of the word "tar". hmm? Did the earth get cancer from all that tar which we now use for fuel?

People didn't inhale it into the lungs.

If you are worried about tar then just use a filter that really works. Athough not provided by tobacco companies we do have such technology for concerned smokers.

If these filters were so great they'd be handily available at Walmart. I've never seen them anywhere. But....you're forgetting the second-hand smoke that's blowing out, and the side-stream smoke.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gela Your explanation of cancer and stress still doesn't specifically target the lungs. This must mean that cancer throughout the body can be caused by stress in the same way. However, no link was found between any cancer and stress; except for breast cancer. For your theory to be true, smokers would have to have an equal chance of getting cancer anywhere throughout their body. However they don't; they tend to get cancer in their lungs.

I was not presenting a theory, I was speaking about what is really happening, how our system operates.

You are still demanding that satistical evidence via epidemology research be used as the the gold standard and I still do not agree that this is the way which will provide a true understanding about the realities that we are dealing with.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe It wasn't just the photos; the guy had a lot of good advice in there, and truisms. I looked for greens and vitamin diets, and didn't find anything but stuff you had to buy. I always took extra beta carotene, and vitamin C and E when I smoked, but they now say extra beta carotene causes cancer, so who knows. I'd take the extra C and possibly E, but not too much just a little boost. Most natives probably don't live long, so comparing them to us doesn't really say much. People didn't inhale it into the lungs. If these filters were so great they'd be handily available at Walmart. I've never seen them anywhere. But....you're forgetting the second-hand smoke that's blowing out, and the side-stream smoke.

Sorry you were miss-informed about the roles of diet as a filtering system for unwanted polution. Not my fault.

I personally would not buy any of those plastic filters being advertised on the internet.

The natual air and water is filtered through the ozone. We now live in a poluted envirnoment and so the idea is to upgrade the ozone within the blood system which contacts all areas of the body. In other words we should add more oxigen to our blood system, which can be done via our diet, and by other means. That is why oxigen is used to treat people in an emergency room. But we should do that via diet on a daily bases.
(natural foods are good enough for that purpose when grown organically).

Our body is starving for oxigen because we no longer live in primitive times when we were exposed to lot of trees and plants and the higher oxigen levels such an environment provided as air. Very prehistoric people might well have lived to be hundreds of years longer then what we know about relative to historical documentation.

However a topical envirnonment also creates a lot of fog and wetness in the air, each droplet of water breathed in can contain biological organisems that reproduce in the warm areas of our lungs, causing breathing problems and death. The main cause of death in Amazonian tribes is that very thing - exposure to moist air. Daily warm showers here can duplicate that experience. And so we would also need to improve our immune system to fight off the bio-organisems that are transmitted into our lungs by those floating water drops in the air we breathe. And to have a way to extend the immune systems' abilities past the age middle age when we stop growing and start to degenerate from that process.

Note: I am not talking about the so-called satistical evidence here, but about "how things work" in an operational sense. And about our plant-based relationship to health.

The satistical evidence would in fact support this if such stats were so collected in the right way.

Research in this area is fairly new and some of the first studies were not published until 2004....

Oxygen Increase Behind Rise Of Mammals

Alligator Egg Development at Prehistoric Oxygen Levels

Tracking Ancient Earth's Oxygen Levels Provides Backdrop For Evolution

And it takes only a small perentage amount of oxygen differences to change the life span of animals.

If oxygen levels were so high at some prehistoric time, why did the animals not get oxygen blindness? - Yahoo! Answers





Oops - typo error - subsitute my misspelled word oxigen with the right word which is OXYGEN.

In my opinion fossil evidence would support my explaination but modern science is just now stating to get into that area of research. We will need more then 4 or 5 years of research to take place before they can prove that my explaination has the factual evidence it so demands. I am just ahead of the game so to speak, waiting for the rest of you to catch up.

The heart, and our cells can sense our emotional stress levels and they will react relative to those signals.

Does your heart sense your emotional state? - Health - MSNBC.com

NIOSH Publication : 99-101 | STRESS...At Work

Stress Breaks Hearts

The following link also explains the relationship between smoking and stress

Stress, causes of stress, its effects and alternative stress management techniques

So you people should expand your knowledge about all these many areas of sound science instead of just depending totally on some stats created to advocate the agendas of the anti-smoking crusade.

Ever notice that when people get mad or fearfull they will start to breathe faster, as the body seems to grasp for extra oxygen? Where as when we are calm we do not need to inhale as much air? How can you ignore that simple observation? I am speaking about "how things really work" and your stats cannot do that.