From my understanding it is the tar and toxic gasses that our put off from burning tobacco(more likely the additives) that causes cancer. Nicotine when it comes to cigarettes partially causes an addition. Nicotine itself is helpful to the brain helping it work better. Their are also studies that show that it can prevent some metal diseases such as parkinson's, tourettes, schizophrenia and maybe even alzheimer's. All things I can live without. Being that most pipe and cigar smokers do not inhale and in-turn do not absorb as much nicotine causing less of a dependancy.
@subtili87. That's an interesting fact I forgot about pot, it's still illegal on a federal level so the FDA or other federal organizations rules already affect it but the states have "superseded" there ruling.
Do you think that the states may be able to do the same thing for the tobacco industry? If they cared enough.
Thats a good question @drac2485. I think it is two different agencies though, isn't marijuana regulated by the DEA and tobacco by the FDA? I may be wrong, so please let me know if I am.
@pipeprofessor I have know idea but it would definitely be interesting to see if the sates did anything about it. I've heard Florida has the potential to be hit very hard with all the small cigar factories and shops not to mention any of the states that grow tobacco, at least the smaller farms.
I'm fairly certain that everything causes cancer in California....
I seem to remember watching a TV show in the 70's or early 80's (yikes!) about how cigarettes were made - seems all kinds of nasty industrial solvents were used to process the tobacco...benzine seems to come to mind for some reason. I've never seen any studies on the effects of smoking pure unadulterated tobacco on health, always figured it might blow their argument!
@phred6666 - The initial study that from the 1960s that the anti-smoking nazis like to quote actually shows the difference by mentioning the lower percentage of cancer from cigar and pipe smokers. However the anti-smoking nazis have decided that if you have a 10th of a percent more chance to get cancer than a non-smoker then it's bad. They have also decided to spin the data and say cigar and pipe smokers have an "increased chance" of mouth and lip cancer to justify their demonizing of all tobacco.
Just know this. People get cancer and die no matter what they do or do not do. When God created this world, he didn't create humans to be immortal or to live beyond the "span of days" he intended. Throughout history, there are many examples of natural events - which man has had little or no control over - that have killed large numbers of humans.
PappyJoe is so on the money with this one (IMO). The deal isn't that if you smoke you die, and that if you don't smoke you don't die. The simple truth is that if smoking doesn't kill you, then something else will. In the words of the late, great James Morrison, "No one here gets out alive." It's not surprising that so many poets and philosophers were pipe smokers.
They shoved tobacco into the claws of the FDA so they can't use State's Rights to stop it. If you watched the "Deeming" video starring Dracula's rejects you heard how they are seizing control of the whole industry (Except Big Tobacco, which has undoubtedly Poured big bucks into the current nest of rats.) So instead of them just targeting the RYO tobaccos that are taking more of their share of their vile cigarette pushing to make it look more "Fair" they include the 1.5% of smokers that we account for to show how powerful they are.
Meanwhile, Some large bucks are flowing lobbying to remove the "Country of Origin" labels from food coming from China.
If a chemical is Known to cause problems in Kalifornia, why don't they alert the rest of the nation? The San Andreas fault has the potential to cause great bodily harm to many people also. Last time I was in San Francisco, I must've missed all the warning signs about that. But, the "Nuclear Free Zone" signs were all over the place!
A California Proposition 65 warning. Another ballot initiative law created to benefit lawyers under the guise of protecting people. If a company markets a product that is available in California, chances are rather good (no matter what the product is) that it contains or (in the case of burning tobacco) produces one or more of the thousands of chemicals recognized by the state's regulatory agencies and being harmful to humans at any concentration level. If the company does not include the required Prop. 65 warning, the company is exposed to daily statutory fines AND attorney fees for the private attorneys that bring the lawsuits "on behalf" of the people of California. A number of law firms have quite the racket extracting money from unsuspecting violators, especially in the age of internet sales. No legal advice being offered here, but it seems that if in doubt, include the warning or better yet clearly indicate the product is not available California:-)
In ‘The Perfect Smoke’, by Fred J Hanna, he has a whole chapter dedicated to nicotine and it’s effects on our bodies. It has some great benefits, such as helping with minor memory loss, preventing Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, etc. Basically, in summary, what he says is that the only bad thing about nicotine is that it is addictive. He has quoted studies that he has in the footnotes. It is very interesting. I can list them, but may make for a long post!
2. Heishman, S. J., Kleykamp, B. A., & Singleton, E. G. (2010). Meta- analysis of the acute effects of nicotine and smoking on human performance. Psychopharmacology, July, pp. 453-469. http://dengulenegl.dk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/meta-analysis- acute-effects-of-nicotine-and-smoking-on-human-performance.pdf
Ok, so we all know the average cigarette smoker lives 7 years less than the non smoker. Given that the average pipe/cigar smoker is affected 9 times less than the average cigarette smoker, we have a legitimate starting point.
Never mind, if my pipe smoking subtracts 3 years off my average 76 year life span, I will gladly take the tradeoff. Those extra 3 years, will most likely be spent with a much lower quality of life. So much lower in fact, that I probably wouldn't feel like taking advantage of my non smoking lifestyle.
My only regret, would most likely be, that I could have somehow convinced myself that my liberal propaganda, is more satisfying than my potential to enjoy pipe and cigar tobacco in moderation, and the stress relief that it provides.
Keep in mind a quote by Aaron Levenstein-
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.
Every damn thing is a health danger in California. When I walk into the machine shop in which I work I have to every day pass a sign saying that anything in the place is a health danger. Any damn guy with a nose realizes that. And they have known it for over one hundred years...The odd thing is that the states allows welders to poison themselves and the nearby machinist with welding fumes containing camdium and nickle and such while prohibiting a guy from smoking a pipe, cigar or cigarette.
@xDutchx - I've read numerous times that pipe smokers have basically the same risk of getting lung cancer as does non-smokers. However, since we are smoking tobacco products, we are lumped into the same group as cigarette smokers.
@PappyJoe, absolutely and the question that usually frustrates me the most is "Do you smoke?"
To which I reply, "Smoke what?"
Which in turn usually solicits a cheshire grin, which tells me they are still way off base.
Of course the insurance companies want to stay ignorant to the facts, so they can charge everyone 3 times the going rates for health insurance, with a deductible so high they are expecting you will never meet it.
@xDutchX - when a thug puts a gun to your back and take your money it's called robbery. When an insurance jacks up your rates to take your money and gives you nothing in return it's called the cost of business. When the government does it, it's called the voluntary reapportionment of your wealth to the poor.
@PappyJoe, the way you worded that in the above post, almost makes the whole thing sound necessary. LoL
I have first hand experience with my doctor choosing a method of treatment that he felt was in my best interest, and then getting a letter from BC telling me that they were cancelling coverage for that particular method of treatment, because it wasn't "cost effective."
I thought to myself, that it doesn't seem "cost effective" for me to pay my premiums, and not get the medical care my doctor feels is best. When I let my doctor read the letter, he grimaced, and said that he was thinking about retiring early.
I suppose putting the American taxpayer in an early grave will serve the greater good, for a little bit.
@xDutchx - went through that with my insurance last year. I have Type II Diabetes and was on a daily shot of Victoza for two years. Had my Type II under control and my A1C down to 5.4. Then they decided they weren't covering Victoza anymore and recommended two other medications. Switched because of that and my A1C was back up to 6.4 six months later. Isn't insurance great.
The latest antismoking ad on the tube says that smoking a Hookah for an hour is the equivalent of 10 cigarettes. As I'm not one for Hookah Bars but, do you inhale a hookah?
Yep, you inhale a lot of hookah. Almost as much as some of these super vapers except it's actually tobacco smoke. The problem with the statement though is that there is almost 4 cigarettes worth of tobacco in a hookah and multiple people smoke from it. So it's 4 cigarettes shared among 1-4 people. I put more tobacco in my Dubliner than most guys will put in a hookah bowl haha.
I just bought one of those inexpensive compact stationary bicycles that you use while sitting in a chair - and wouldn't you know it, as I was reading through the instruction manual the very first item under the Safety Instructions was a warning which read: "This product contains a chemical known to the Sate of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm".
So take heart fellow pipers ... apparently in California it can be just as harmful to exercise as it is to smoke a pipe.
Comments
Do you think that the states may be able to do the same thing for the tobacco industry? If they cared enough.
They shoved tobacco into the claws of the FDA so they can't use State's Rights to stop it. If you watched the "Deeming" video starring Dracula's rejects you heard how they are seizing control of the whole industry (Except Big Tobacco, which has undoubtedly Poured big bucks into the current nest of rats.) So instead of them just targeting the RYO tobaccos that are taking more of their share of their vile cigarette pushing to make it look more "Fair" they include the 1.5% of smokers that we account for to show how powerful they are.
Meanwhile, Some large bucks are flowing lobbying to remove the "Country of Origin" labels from food coming from China.
If a chemical is Known to cause problems in Kalifornia, why don't they alert the rest of the nation? The San Andreas fault has the potential to cause great bodily harm to many people also. Last time I was in San Francisco, I must've missed all the warning signs about that. But, the "Nuclear Free Zone" signs were all over the place!
Tuxedo007
Ok, so we all know the average cigarette smoker lives 7 years less than the non smoker. Given that the average pipe/cigar smoker is affected 9 times less than the average cigarette smoker, we have a legitimate starting point.
Never mind, if my pipe smoking subtracts 3 years off my average 76 year life span, I will gladly take the tradeoff. Those extra 3 years, will most likely be spent with a much lower quality of life. So much lower in fact, that I probably wouldn't feel like taking advantage of my non smoking lifestyle.
My only regret, would most likely be, that I could have somehow convinced myself that my liberal propaganda, is more satisfying than my potential to enjoy pipe and cigar tobacco in moderation, and the stress relief that it provides.
Keep in mind a quote by Aaron Levenstein-
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.
@PappyJoe, absolutely and the question that usually frustrates me the most is "Do you smoke?"
To which I reply, "Smoke what?"
Which in turn usually solicits a cheshire grin, which tells me they are still way off base.
Of course the insurance companies want to stay ignorant to the facts, so they can charge everyone 3 times the going rates for health insurance, with a deductible so high they are expecting you will never meet it.
@PappyJoe, the way you worded that in the above post, almost makes the whole thing sound necessary. LoL
I have first hand experience with my doctor choosing a method of treatment that he felt was in my best interest, and then getting a letter from BC telling me that they were cancelling coverage for that particular method of treatment, because it wasn't "cost effective."
I thought to myself, that it doesn't seem "cost effective" for me to pay my premiums, and not get the medical care my doctor feels is best. When I let my doctor read the letter, he grimaced, and said that he was thinking about retiring early.
I suppose putting the American taxpayer in an early grave will serve the greater good, for a little bit.
I just bought one of those inexpensive compact stationary bicycles that you use while sitting in a chair - and wouldn't you know it, as I was reading through the instruction manual the very first item under the Safety Instructions was a warning which read: "This product contains a chemical known to the Sate of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm".
So take heart fellow pipers ... apparently in California it can be just as harmful to exercise as it is to smoke a pipe.