Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: The Many Health Benefits of Smoking Tobacco

  1. #1
    Member
    Eirik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    Last Online
    4 Hours Ago @ 10:11 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    German/Prussian
    Subrace
    North Atlantid
    Country
    Other Other
    Location
    Slovenia
    Gender
    Religion
    Gnosticism
    Posts
    17
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    4
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    22
    Thanked in
    12 Posts

    The Many Health Benefits of Smoking Tobacco

    We are often told today, by the mass media, the press, people on the internet and even the people putting anti-smoking labels on cigarette packets, that smoking is objectively bad for your health. Even I myself have been turned off by smoking until recently, so hear me out as I provide...

    An alternative perspective

    So let's start by asking: does tobacco really cause cancer, or is it simply associated with it? Anti-smoking campaigners would have you believe that smoking causes cancer, and that this belief is universally accepted among all scientific disciplines. Interestingly enough, it's not. There have actually been several prominent figures in science who have openly condemned, questioned, and opposed this theory.

    Here are a couple of quotes from Whitby's The Smoking Scare Debunked:
    "No ingredient of cigarette smoke has been shown to cause human lung cancer. No-one has been able to produce lung cancer in laboratory animals from smoking." - Professor Schrauzer, President of the International Bio-inorganic Chemists

    "It is fanciful extrapolation - not factual data. The unscientific way in which the study was made bothers us most. The committee agreed first that smoking causes lung cancer and then they set out to prove it statistically." (U.S. Congressional Record.) - Professor M.B. Rosenblatt, New York Medical College

    "The belief that smoking is the cause of lung cancer is no longer widely held by scientists. Smoking is no longer seen as a cause of heart disease, except by a few zealots." - Professor Sheldon Sommers, New York Academy of Medicine and Science

    "The natural experiment (referring to a rise in lung cancer when people were unable to smoke) shows conclusively that the hypothesis must be abandoned."- Dr. B. Dijkstra, University of Pretoria

    "As a scientist I find no persuasive evidence that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer." - Dr. Ronald Okun, director of Clinical Pathology, LA

    "After years of intensive research, no compound in cigarette smoking has been established as a health hazard." - Professor Charles H. Hine, University of CaliforniaThe two main studies at the foundation of the smoking-cancer myth are the 'Doll and Hill' study (1956, also called the British Doctors' Study) and the 'Whitehall' study (1967, a study of mortality rates among male British civil servants). To briefly summarize their findings: Doll and Hill found a slightly increased risk of lung cancer in smokers when compared to non-smokers. The results of this particular study were widely publicized and were one of the main drivers behind the whole 'anti-smoking' campaign that followed shortly afterward. However, what Doll and Hill failed to publicly mention was that their results actually showed that smokers who inhaled the smoke were at a significantly decreased risk compared to smokers who didn't inhale. Presumably, this detail was left out because it didn't support the theory that they were trying to prove. Next up, the results of the Whitehall study went like this: people who gave up smoking showed no improvement in life expectancy; there were also no changes in deaths caused by heart disease, lung cancer, or other causes. The only exception was that certain types of cancer were more than twice as common in people who gave up smoking. Nevertheless, these inconvenient facts were hidden beneath a load of technical jargon which makes the report difficult to read. It seems that, even back then, there was an agenda to demonize smoking so the interpretation of the data was twisted in such a way that smoking tobacco would take the blame.Much other research has identified correlations between smoking and lung cancer. The problem is, researcher bias often comes into play. Basically, researchers who are aiming to confirm an original hypothesis are more likely to unconsciously misinterpret the data. Since funding is involved in research, there may also be pressure 'from above' to present a specific conclusion to the public, even though the results proved to be different. With tobacco research, this is usually the case, it seems. The author's conclusion of the study often bears little or no resemblance to the actual findings.Instead of data being reported back to the public in its raw form, reports can be skewed and manipulated beforehand to imply causation. It must be understood that there is a stark difference between (1) identifying a correlation between two factors, and (2) identifying the cause of a thing. It's quite simple to identify correlations and associations. For example, there is a significant correlation between basketball players and being tall. Does this mean that playing basketball causes people to grow taller? Clearly not. Mexican lemon imports are also inversely correlated with highway deaths in the US. Does this mean that importing lemons prevents deaths on the highway? No, of course it doesn't. It would be ludicrous to suggest otherwise. This is why correlation can never imply causation. Unfortunately, however, when it comes to tobacco, this rule apparently does not apply. The truth is that no study has ever managed to conclusively prove that smoking is the direct cause of lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema, nor any other disease it has been routinely associated with.

    For several years now, biased scientists with personal agendas have approached this subject with vested interests in certain outcomes, namely that smoking causes cancer and other chronic diseases. There is also an abundance of evidence suggesting that these same individuals have intentionally misinterpreted data in order to further their own personal goals and aspirations. These twisted interpretations of data have been publicized en masse by media and public health giants ever since. So despite the increasing number of studies suggesting otherwise, the common belief that smoking causes cancer has become thoroughly ingrained in almost everyone's mind. It is therefore likely that the majority of the scientific community also operates under this faulty assumption, and so the implications are that the quality of scientific research into this area has been, and will be, undoubtedly skewed.

    First of all, one recent study showed that people with a diet high in GI (glycemic index) foods (such as breads, pastas and rice) were almost 50% more likely to develop lung cancer. Within these results, non-smokers were found to be twice as likely to develop the cancer when compared with smokers. Alone, this finding could be explained away as anomalous, but as we move through the evidence you may begin to see how it fits into the bigger picture. It appears, from the research, that smoking tobacco may actually act as a protective measure against external disease-causing agents.

    There was another studythat measured the carcinogenic effects of radon after radioactive uranium ore dust was inhaled by dogs. Paradoxically, unlike the usual fatalities witnessed in other dogs during similar experiments, none of the dogs exposed to tobacco contracted cancer. The author stated that "exposure to cigarette smoke was found to have a mitigating effect on radon daughter-induced tumors". Similarly an experiment on irradiated rats showed that those who smoked and were irradiated showed significantly less inflammation in the lungs than those who did not smoke. In many ways, the smoking group resembled the non-irradiated controls. According to the author "this experimental study further supported the suppressive effect of smoking on radiation-induced pneumo-nitis."

    In human research, one analysis showed that the risk of developing lung cancer from asbestos exposure was "significantly increased in non-smokers in six of the studies [reviewed]". Another study suggested that the risk of developing lung cancer from asbestos exposure is approximately three times higher in non-smokers than it is in smokers. After breast cancer radiotherapy treatment, smokers have also been observed to display a "significantly decreased inflammatory reaction i.e., reduced levels of mast cells and lymphocytes, compared to both non-smoking controls and patients". Are these results simply coincidental, or did smoking erect a protective barrier against radiation damage and asbestos?

    Research suggests that smoking may also protect against other kinds of environmental pollution, such as exhaust fumes. A recent study on miners showed a strong link between diesel engine exhaust fume exposure and lung cancer. The results demonstrated that miners who were heavily exposed have a three times higher risk of dying from lung cancer compared with miners with low exposure. Whereas for non-smokers, the risk was seven times higher.

    The Health benefits of Tobacco

    Nicotine is one of the main components of tobacco and displays a wide variety of healing properties, which is why it is currently the subject of some fascinating new scientific research. To truly appreciate the benefits of nicotine, however, we must first examine its primary mechanisms of action.

    Nicotine is the protoypic agonist of the nicotinic subtype of acetylcholine receptors. What this basically means is that nicotine is compatible with acetylcholine receptors in the body and has the ability to bind to them. This action is responsible for triggering a cascade of chemical reactions, although its main effect is to stimulate the release of a wide variety of neurotransmitters, including dopamine, serotonin, noradrenaline and, primarily, acetylcholine. According to Dr Gabriela Segura, "Acetylcholine is a neurotransmitter responsible for learning and memory. It is also calming, relaxing and is also a major factor regulating the immune system. Acetylcholine also acts as a major brake on inflammation in the body and inflammation is linked to every known disease." When nicotine binds to α7 nAChR (acetylcholine receptors tied to immunity), it activates a system known as the 'cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathway', which is responsible for decreasing inflammation in the body. Therefore, nicotine is actually an anti-inflammatory molecule.

    The paper 'Nicotine, an anti-inflammation molecule' deals with this topic extensively, explaining that "nicotine stimulation plays a key role in suppressing inflammatory cytokine production, can significantly down-regulate and delay inflammatory and autoimmune responses in the central nervous system, and could further attenuate neuro-inflammation. Nicotine-treated mice injected with lethal doses of influenza A virus infection also displayed longer survival rates when compared to control groups." The author finally states:
    "These in vitro and in vivo results further confirmed the anti-inflammatory effect of nicotine. Our study offered the first evidence that the anti-inflammatory effect of nicotine in cigarette smoke might be the key contributor for the alleviation of the disease severity of both pdmH1N1 and H9N2 influenza A virus infection, and such anti-inflammatory effect was through the α7 nAChR signaling pathway."
    Considering the beneficial effects of acetylcholine on the brain and nervous system, let's take a look at how smoking affects brain function.

    A commonly known fact among cognitive psychologists and neuroscientists is that nicotine significantly increases cognitive functioning. The US government published a meta-analysis study in 2010 (conducted by the National Institute on Drug Abuse) which reviewed all of the literature on nicotine's effect on the brain. Out of a total of 256, 48 of the highest quality standardized computer test studies were chosen for review. On these tests, half of the participants received nicotine and the other half were given a placebo. The results showed that people who received nicotine performed better on almost every test, whether they were smokers or not, and especially in areas of memory, speed, precision, focus and attention. The study also showed that nicotine users performed significantly better in other areas such as long-term memory, semantic memory, arithmetic & complex calculations, and gross motor skills.

    Nicotine is clearly very beneficial for cognitive function, but when compared to actually smoking tobacco, we can see that isolated nicotine simply isn't as effective. A study conducted by Warburton et al found:
    "[Smoke-free] nicotine produces improvements in mental efficiency, which are qualitatively similar to the improvements produced by smoking, although our findings on vigilance and rapid information processing indicate that the improvements are quantitatively smaller than those produced by smoking."
    Another study published in 2014 showed that an increase in nicotine receptors (induced by smoking) was associated with lower levels of social withdrawal and better cognitive function. There is actually a wealth of information on nicotine's favourable physiological effects which can be retrieved from scientific data alone, yet none of this information manages to filter through to the public eye. However, this should not be surprising for those who understand how often mainstream media and Big Pharma effectively distort or suppress information which is not conducive to the official narrative they are attempting to convey.

    Finally, researcher David. M. Warburton from the Department of Psychology at the University of Reading, concluded that:
    1. Nicotine improves attention in a wide variety of tasks in healthy volunteers.

    2. Nicotine improves immediate and longer term memory in healthy volunteers.

    3. Nicotine improves attention in patients with probable Alzheimer's Disease.

    4. While some of the memory effects of nicotine may be due to enhanced attention, others seem to be the result of improved consolidation as shown by post-trial dosing.
    Read the whole article here

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Eirik For This Useful Post:


  3. #2
    Fundamental Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member


    Rodskarl Dubhgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    US, UK, IE
    Ancestry
    EN, IE, SC
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Y-DNA
    R-BY30613
    mtDNA
    K2a5a1
    Country
    Dominion of Canada Dominion of Canada
    State
    Rhode Island Rhode Island
    Location
    Kentucky
    Gender
    Age
    38
    Zodiac Sign
    Leo
    Family
    Married parent
    Occupation
    Black-Smiter
    Politics
    Toryism
    Religion
    Odinism
    Posts
    3,641
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    7,626
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    397
    Thanked in
    344 Posts
    I've never had a problem with others smoking the old version of pipe with untreated tobacco leaves, but agree that the chemicals that are used in processing tobacco are likely carcinogenic. It's the reason why the potheads claim that smoking dope is healthier, but you see how marijuana and vapour enthusiasts have pushed for a vacuum of stimulants so as to fill the void, which would entail "abolishing" tobacco. Personally, I'm not interested in doing either, but am against the commercialisation of inhalants apart from candles, incense and potpourri. I don't think that smoking should be illegal or legally sold and taxed, but a private matter since tobacco and cannabis grow naturally anyway. If you were to grow poison ivy, poison oak, poison sumac, greenbriars, peyote, fly agaric or any other psychoactive fungi, it wouldn't be illegal even if rather unpleasant. All dangers from the natural world can be understood and avoided, but why criminal, if it is not the source of profits from selling addictions? Money from suffering is the key to judge criminality, in my opinion.

    On a related note to the point of diffusion of tobacco being by the American Indians, I believe that it would be better for them to monopolise tobacco if it is to be sold, than ownership and operation of casinos on their tribal reservations, which ought to be open to anyone and anywhere. Gambling is hardly native to the Americas and even though the American Indians aren't even either, it's far more arbitrary to associate the two. I am personally against gambling but don't begrudge others wasting their life savings. Maybe alcoholism would be diverted to nicotine addiction per the traditional drug use of American Indians, if it's that much more topical for them. Understanding others' addiction at their hands would induce them to quit their own. It's like how cocaine and heroin drug lords aren't addicted to anything but the profits thereof. All in all, too many are addicted to things they don't need and which cost far more than one ought to spend on with a budget that will eventually have to cover healthcare expenses for alleviating withdrawal symptoms as well.

    If I'm going to buy something to put in my body, I want it to be my choice of premium food and drink along with vitamins and nutritional supplements, not much else. I do consume tea and herbal beverages often, coffee and alcohol only sometimes, but no energy drinks or depressants otherwise. Self control and moderation are the key to keeping a normal life. I don't find anything glamorous about pubs even though the food and music are usually good enough, but prefer them to be family friendly.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Rodskarl Dubhgall For This Useful Post:


  5. #3
    Anachronism
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Huginn ok Muninn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ancestry
    Germany, Norway, England
    Subrace
    Nordeby
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Texas Texas
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Leo
    Family
    Single adult
    Politics
    Farther right than you.
    Posts
    3,167
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    841
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    988
    Thanked in
    494 Posts
    This is the most idiotic crap I've ever seen posted here, and there has been a lot of that. As someone who had to watch my mother die a long, painful death from lung cancer, and had three other relatives debilitated by emphysema for the last couple years of their lives, I can tell the OP with confidence that he is completely full of shit.
    [02-10, 17:07] Chlodovech: cats may have a reason for meowing too

    [02-10, 17:08] renownedwolf: same reason as the missus then.. give me stuff/affection..though she doesnt need me to let her out in the garden for a poo..

    [02-10, 17:09] Chlodovech: that's more than I can say of Thoreidar

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Huginn ok Muninn For This Useful Post:


  7. #4
    Wild Cat
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Gareth Lee Hunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Online
    2 Days Ago @ 03:13 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English/German American
    Ancestry
    England and Germany
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Indiana Indiana
    Location
    A peaceful oasis.
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Cancer
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    I work at home.
    Politics
    Not a Republicrat.
    Religion
    Nondenominational Christian
    Posts
    1,428
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,909
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,877
    Thanked in
    927 Posts
    My father and older sister smoked themselves into such a terrible state of health, they were virtually invalids by the time they were in their sixties. And their second hand smoke is the main reason I suffer from asthma.

    Tobacco smoke is the number one trigger to my asthma attacks. This is why I absolutely refuse to go anywhere that allows smoking, and it's absolutely forbidden anywhere on our property, indoors or outside.

    Our lungs were designed to breathe fresh, clean air, not pollutants such as deliberately inhaled tobacco smoke.
    Aside from an ever increasing number of mortals who have willfully chosen to worship Satan and his minions, our battle has always been against the powers and principalities operating surreptitiously throughout this twisted world.

  8. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Gareth Lee Hunter For This Useful Post:


  9. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2021
    Last Online
    1 Hour Ago @ 01:44 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Canadian
    Ancestry
    Northwest and Central Europe
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Odalism
    Religion
    Pre-Christian Paganism
    Posts
    8
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    If you're going to smoke keep it to your self away from non-consenting others. I have strengthened my lungs to normal but I still have asthma and I can feel it in my lungs after walking past a smoker. Do you really need to smoke? Spend your money wisely.

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Glorfindel For This Useful Post:


  11. #6
    Member
    Eirik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    Last Online
    4 Hours Ago @ 10:11 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    German/Prussian
    Subrace
    North Atlantid
    Country
    Other Other
    Location
    Slovenia
    Gender
    Religion
    Gnosticism
    Posts
    17
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    4
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    22
    Thanked in
    12 Posts
    You know, if you took the time to read the actual article for more than 3 seconds, you'd figure out that smoking is not directly responsible for lung cancer or emphysema. I get that Big Pharma has been pumping the "SMOKING BAD" narrative into your head all your life, but maybe stay off the anti-depressants next time, friend (thx for the insults btw, I appreciate them). Oh, and if you don't wanna pull up the article, then I'll spoonfeed you:
    "No ingredient of cigarette smoke has been shown to cause human lung cancer. No-one has been able to produce lung cancer in laboratory animals from smoking." - Professor Schrauzer, President of the International Bio-inorganic Chemists

    "It is fanciful extrapolation - not factual data. The unscientific way in which the study was made bothers us most. The committee agreed first that smoking causes lung cancer and then they set out to prove it statistically." (U.S. Congressional Record.) - Professor M.B. Rosenblatt, New York Medical College

    "The belief that smoking is the cause of lung cancer is no longer widely held by scientists. Smoking is no longer seen as a cause of heart disease, except by a few zealots." - Professor Sheldon Sommers, New York Academy of Medicine and Science

    "The natural experiment (referring to a rise in lung cancer when people were unable to smoke) shows conclusively that the hypothesis must be abandoned."- Dr. B. Dijkstra, University of Pretoria

    "As a scientist I find no persuasive evidence that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer." - Dr. Ronald Okun, director of Clinical Pathology, LA

    "After years of intensive research, no compound in cigarette smoking has been established as a health hazard." - Professor Charles H. Hine, University of California


    The two main studies at the foundation of the smoking-cancer myth are the 'Doll and Hill' study (1956, also called the British Doctors' Study) and the 'Whitehall' study (1967, a study of mortality rates among male British civil servants). To briefly summarize their findings: Doll and Hill found a slightly increased risk of lung cancer in smokers when compared to non-smokers. The results of this particular study were widely publicized and were one of the main drivers behind the whole 'anti-smoking' campaign that followed shortly afterward. However, what Doll and Hill failed to publicly mention was that their results actually showed that smokers who inhaled the smoke were at a significantly decreased risk compared to smokers who didn't inhale.2 Presumably, this detail was left out because it didn't support the theory that they were trying to prove. Next up, the results of the Whitehall study went like this: people who gave up smoking showed no improvement in life expectancy; there were also no changes in deaths caused by heart disease, lung cancer, or other causes. The only exception was that certain types of cancer were more than twice as common in people who gave up smoking.

    Much other research has identified correlations between smoking and lung cancer. The problem is, researcher bias often comes into play. Basically, researchers who are aiming to confirm an original hypothesis are more likely to unconsciously misinterpret the data. Since funding is involved in research, there may also be pressure 'from above' to present a specific conclusion to the public, even though the results proved to be different. With tobacco research, this is usually the case, it seems. The author's conclusion of the study often bears little or no resemblance to the actual findings.

    Instead of data being reported back to the public in its raw form, reports can be skewed and manipulated beforehand to imply causation. It must be understood that there is a stark difference between (1) identifying a correlation between two factors, and (2) identifying the cause of a thing. It's quite simple to identify correlations and associations. For example, there is a significant correlation between basketball players and being tall. Does this mean that playing basketball causes people to grow taller? Clearly not. Mexican lemon imports are also inversely correlated with highway deaths in the US. Does this mean that importing lemons prevents deaths on the highway? No, of course it doesn't. It would be ludicrous to suggest otherwise. This is why correlation can never imply causation. Unfortunately, however, when it comes to tobacco, this rule apparently does not apply. The truth is that no study has ever managed to conclusively prove that smoking is the direct cause of lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema, nor any other disease it has been routinely associated with.

  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Eirik For This Useful Post:


  13. #7
    Senior Member
    Theunissen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Last Online
    34 Minutes Ago @ 02:26 AM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ancestry
    North Western Europe
    Country
    South Africa South Africa
    State
    Transvaal Transvaal
    Location
    South Africa
    Gender
    Posts
    913
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    363
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    583
    Thanked in
    354 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Glorfindel View Post
    If you're going to smoke keep it to your self away from non-consenting others. I have strengthened my lungs to normal but I still have asthma and I can feel it in my lungs after walking past a smoker. Do you really need to smoke? Spend your money wisely.
    That should be logical.

    However it is also untrue to claim that smoking / nicotine only has negative effects.

    The problem is that it is habit forming and hence will lead to overuse. Smoking comes with more than just nicotine - lots of other stuff in tobacco mixtures.
    On the other hand smoking got inhibitive factors alternative nicotine supply may not have.

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Theunissen For This Useful Post:


  15. #8
    Fundamental Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member


    Rodskarl Dubhgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    US, UK, IE
    Ancestry
    EN, IE, SC
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Y-DNA
    R-BY30613
    mtDNA
    K2a5a1
    Country
    Dominion of Canada Dominion of Canada
    State
    Rhode Island Rhode Island
    Location
    Kentucky
    Gender
    Age
    38
    Zodiac Sign
    Leo
    Family
    Married parent
    Occupation
    Black-Smiter
    Politics
    Toryism
    Religion
    Odinism
    Posts
    3,641
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    7,626
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    397
    Thanked in
    344 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Gareth Lee Hunter View Post
    My father and older sister smoked themselves into such a terrible state of health, they were virtually invalids by the time they were in their sixties. And their second hand smoke is the main reason I suffer from asthma.

    Tobacco smoke is the number one trigger to my asthma attacks. This is why I absolutely refuse to go anywhere that allows smoking, and it's absolutely forbidden anywhere on our property, indoors or outside.

    Our lungs were designed to breathe fresh, clean air, not pollutants such as deliberately inhaled tobacco smoke.
    I'm personally not bothered by smoking when done anywhere in open air. I don't want to be holed up anywhere with smoke of any kind, so ventilation is appreciated. I love campfire and fireplace smoke when there are obvious means for it to escape. I think that smoking was so easy to take up in the past, due to the cramped hovels that most of our ancestors lived in, where they were used to associating heated comfort with inhaling hearth smoke. Growing up with the D.A.R.E. programme, I didn't smoke more than 1 1/2 of a cigarette over the course of my teens and don't do so now, nor do I bother others who do. I do not find alcohol debilitating as it has been a normal art of social life since prehistory and yet, I am never drunk because I only have one pint despite the ability to down two as a man.

    Only straight edge avoidance is truly admirable and I'm happy that I wouldn't smoke any joint offered me as if it were normal and I was the freak. I tend to like smokers of tobacco more than dope fiends and yes, likewise even prefer drunks to pillheads. Whoever says smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol is horrible, usually excuses other, probably worse addictions as substitutes. I just save my ridicule and disdain for those who insist on alternative drugs as supposedly more innocent. Yes, I have as little respect for the pharmaceutical industry as I do drug lords, but vape and marijuana addicts who claim they aren't, are obviously too lost in it to see its effects on themselves and others. Everyone has holier-than-thou excuses why their chemical dependency is not so bad like others and they don't impress.

Similar Threads

  1. Health Benefits of Turmeric
    By Víðálfr in forum Health, Fitness & Nutrition
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Friday, February 1st, 2019, 11:54 PM
  2. Health Benefits Of Chocolate
    By Ælfrun in forum Food & Drink
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Wednesday, October 18th, 2017, 08:38 AM
  3. The Health Benefits of Beer
    By RusViking in forum Health, Fitness & Nutrition
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Sunday, May 9th, 2004, 09:16 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •