In the News II

Quote: DoubleGold

I was very careful in my usage of wording.

It's up to the reader to interpret on their own.

Have you reread your post, literally every statement is about smoking, except for, "tobacco does not decrease longevity," most people are going to assume this is a reference to smoking.

Quote: Gandler

Have you reread your post, literally every statement is about smoking, except for, "tobacco does not decrease longevity," most people are going to assume this is a reference to smoking.

It's related to the vocabulary of the reader.

Quote: DoubleGold

It's related to the vocabulary of the reader.

In other words, everyone else here is not as smart as you?

Cigarette smoking and tobacco go hand in hand--why play word salad about it? The first thing people think of when they hear about cigarettes is tobacco.

If it truly is just those nasty things that get added in, why don't cigarette manufacturers produce a "clean" product that doesn't have them? Is it because the cigarette was be ineffective as habit-forming?

Big Tobacco has been part of killing a lot of people. Yes, they don't "have" to get addicted to cigarettes but that doesn't mean the companies aren't producing a product that hurts both users and the people near them. They did it, and continue to do it, knowing the results of use of their products.

Yes, I blame people for smoking, too. I hate it. It makes me sad to see the younger folks I have worked with smoking more than many of the folks my age.

Your word salad game is fine. I hope it makes you feel superior. It doesn't impress me.

Quote: RonC

In other words, everyone else here is not as smart as you?

Cigarette smoking and tobacco go hand in hand--why play word salad about it? The first thing people think of when they hear about cigarettes is tobacco.

If it truly is just those nasty things that get added in, why don't cigarette manufacturers produce a "clean" product that doesn't have them? Is it because the cigarette was be ineffective as habit-forming?

Big Tobacco has been part of killing a lot of people. Yes, they don't "have" to get addicted to cigarettes but that doesn't mean the companies aren't producing a product that hurts both users and the people near them. They did it, and continue to do it, knowing the results of use of their products.

Yes, I blame people for smoking, too. I hate it. It makes me sad to see the younger folks I have worked with smoking more than many of the folks my age.

Your word salad game is fine. I hope it makes you feel superior. It doesn't impress me.

You missed my meaning too. :)

Folks have been brainwashed about tobacco.

Tobacco is a medicine, according to the natives.

But certainly, modern smoking with chemicals added is not a medicine, although smoking could trap radioactive particles in mucus when we breath.



Were the natives correct about tobacco?

It's debatable.

One argument for smoking comes down to breathing radioactive particles versus the chemicals added in the growing and manufacturing process.



The following article doesn't distinguish smoking from tobacco.

So a reader might think smoking tobacco with chemicals added is what Jeanne Calment smoked.

That's likely not the case.

So the article could be misleading.

------------------

Secrets of longevity may lie in long-lived smokers, a ‘biologically distinct’ group with extraordinary gene variants

September 10, 2015
.
.
.
Jeanne Calment, the French doyenne believed to be oldest person in the world when she died at the extreme age of 122, was known for three things: her quick wit, her fondness for bicycling around the small city where she grew up -- and the fact that she was a daily smoker.
.
.
.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/09/10/long-lived-smokers-may-be-a-biologically-distinct-group-with-an-extraordinary-gene-network/

-------------------

Quote: DoubleGold

That's why they can't figure out why the folks longest living smoke.

Genetics. They were lucky.

'Mortality among male smokers and smokeless tobacco users in the USA'

HR is the Hazard Ratio.

HR = 1.98 means current smokers have a 98% increased risk for mortality from heart disease.

'There were 15,540 deaths from all causes, including 3476 never tobacco users, 4782 exclusive smokers, and 210 exclusive ST users. The latter had significant excess mortality from all causes (HR = 1.25, CI = 1.08–1.46), but not from heart diseases (HR = 1.16, CI = 0.85–1.59), malignant neoplasms (HR = 1.17, CI = 0.83–1.67), and all smoking-related diseases (HR = 1.19, CI = 0.97–1.46). However, they had higher mortality for all other causes (1.39, CI = 1.10–1.74), which was largely seen in age 40–59 years (HR = 1.68, CI = 1.11–2.54). Current smokers, with or without ST use, also had significantly elevated HRs for other causes (1.70 and 1.57, respectively), in addition to significant increases in mortality from heart diseases (1.98 and 2.00), malignant neoplasms (2.60 and 2.84), and all smoking-related diseases (2.32 and 2.47).'

Quote: DoubleGold

You missed my meaning too. :)

No, I didn't.

I just think it is a specious argument when "tobacco" is the common term used for a range of products that cause harm to individuals.

A few people live to be 100 using a lot of products. That doesn't represent the norm so it literally does not mean anything.

Quote: Tanko

Genetics. They were lucky.

'Mortality among male smokers and smokeless tobacco users in the USA'

HR is the Hazard Ratio.

HR = 1.98 means current smokers have a 98% increased risk for mortality from heart disease.

'There were 15,540 deaths from all causes, including 3476 never tobacco users, 4782 exclusive smokers, and 210 exclusive ST users. The latter had significant excess mortality from all causes (HR = 1.25, CI = 1.08–1.46), but not from heart diseases (HR = 1.16, CI = 0.85–1.59), malignant neoplasms (HR = 1.17, CI = 0.83–1.67), and all smoking-related diseases (HR = 1.19, CI = 0.97–1.46). However, they had higher mortality for all other causes (1.39, CI = 1.10–1.74), which was largely seen in age 40–59 years (HR = 1.68, CI = 1.11–2.54). Current smokers, with or without ST use, also had significantly elevated HRs for other causes (1.70 and 1.57, respectively), in addition to significant increases in mortality from heart diseases (1.98 and 2.00), malignant neoplasms (2.60 and 2.84), and all smoking-related diseases (2.32 and 2.47).'

I agree with the genetics approach.

But there's more to it than only genetics.


To my knowledge, that study is misleading like the reference in my previous post.

It doesn't distinguish tobacco from large corporate tobacco.


One difference for tobacco to be economically viable, pesticides have to be added or genetically modified.

Or else, they'd lose money growing as a cash crop.


As I mentioned, folks have been brainwashed:

-------------------


The Spirit of Mapacho: A Brief History of Sacred Tobacco

March 21, 2024
.
.
.
Tobacco has been regarded as a healing plant throughout the Americas for thousands of years. Smoked, snorted, drunk, and refined into a paste for eating or to use as a topical—sacred tobacco, or “mapacho,” as it is often called in the Amazon, is an ancient tool.

Tobacco has been grown for at least 1,000 years in South America, and with estimates of the plant being up to 6 million years old, its history of use stretches further back than archeological records can track. Pipes and seeds offer clues of ancient use, while surviving practices like tobacco juice enemas or blessings blown in a cloud of smoke confirm its enduring significance.

When colonial explorers brought tobacco to Europe, the plant became an agent of pleasure and a vice for nobility. As tobacco became available to the masses, like too many plants, it became commodified: Packaged, marketed and profited from. As a product, tobacco became divorced from its cultural meaning and historical roots, while some anthropologists speculated indigenous use was a cover for addiction.

Yet, traditions that carry the old stories and see tobacco as medicine know a different plant. From the Cariris in Brazil, the Witoto in Peru, the Cahuilla in California, and dozens of groups view tobacco as a gift from the earliest days of creation, with the power to heal by connecting with the world of spirit—not as a noxious or poisonous agent.
.
.
.
https://doubleblindmag.com/mapacho-nicotiana-rustica-sacred-tobacco/

-----------------------

Quote: RonC

No, I didn't.

I just think it is a specious argument when "tobacco" is the common term used for a range of products that cause harm to individuals.

A few people live to be 100 using a lot of products. That doesn't represent the norm so it literally does not mean anything.

So you believe tobacco causes harm.

I believe tobacco could increase longevity, because many of the oldest living folks in history smoked daily.


It's OK to disagree.

If we ever try another version of drug legalization, I would suggest legalizing all drugs in raw form, if they exist in that form. You can eat the opium raw, cocoa plant, mushroom. If caught with a processed drug you would get a bullet through the head. If you were intentionally trying to produce modified plants to increase their potency, your hands would be cut off. Synthetizing something for drug abuse would get your genitals burned off, then shot in the head. Yup I would even do away with legal weed enhancement. Probably fix forms of alcohol to, to be consistent. A much tamer branch of legal drugs of all kinds.

edited, medical drugs would have the same usage if approved,. For instance, you can receive a power form of an opiate for certain conditions and procedures under actual medical supervision. Not fake medical approval.