"clean" tobacco?

[Kwint Sommer]

The big problem with Tobacco is that when smoked it paralyzes the Cilia in your lungs. The Cilia are responsible for removing foreign objects such as the little bits of carbon that float off the burnt cigarette. The more you smoke the longer the Cilia are paralyzed and the more crap builds up in your lungs. The lungs are a pretty delicate membrane that is easily irritated by crap on them so the more crap that builds up the more damage is done. It is generally this damage as opposed to additive substances that leads to cancer.

Also, most modern cigarettes have decent filters on them and smoking 2 (that?s cigarettes not packs) a day has not been show to have substantial health risks. The studies on second hand smoking are also not as substantially against it as you might be led to believe. The majority showed no substantial difference between groups that avoided smokers altogether and those that frequented smokey bars. The only groups that showed a difference were those that lived with smokers and even then these were not confirmed by all studies. Smoking can also help people suffering from Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS).

That said, smoking is a nasty, smelly habit that I can?t stand. Rolling your own means going without a filter which exponentially increases the amount of crap that is getting into his lungs. If he is only smoking 2 or less a day it won?t make much of difference as his Cilia will still transport most of it out but any more and he is likely doing substantial and often permanent damage.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Kwint Sommer
The big problem with Tobacco is that when smoked it paralyzes the Cilia in your lungs. The Cilia are responsible for removing foreign objects such as the little bits of carbon that float off the burnt cigarette. The more you smoke the longer the Cilia are paralyzed and the more crap builds up in your lungs. The lungs are a pretty delicate membrane that is easily irritated by crap on them so the more crap that builds up the more damage is done. It is generally this damage as opposed to additive substances that leads to cancer.

Also, most modern cigarettes have decent filters on them and smoking 2 (that?s cigarettes not packs) a day has not been show to have substantial health risks. The studies on second hand smoking are also not as substantially against it as you might be led to believe. The majority showed no substantial difference between groups that avoided smokers altogether and those that frequented smokey bars. The only groups that showed a difference were those that lived with smokers and even then these were not confirmed by all studies. Smoking can also help people suffering from Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS).

That said, smoking is a nasty, smelly habit that I can?t stand. Rolling your own means going without a filter which exponentially increases the amount of crap that is getting into his lungs. If he is only smoking 2 or less a day it won?t make much of difference as his Cilia will still transport most of it out but any more and he is likely doing substantial and often permanent damage.

:thumbsup:

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: bignateyk
its MUCH cheaper, and yes, it does lower the health risk, but it certainly does not eliminate it.

That's what I hear.

Apparently over in Europe a lot more people roll their own, because taxes there are even worse...

 

[Powermoloch]

tobacco = tobacco

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: bignateyk

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: bignateyk
its MUCH cheaper, and yes, it does lower the health risk, but it certainly does not eliminate it.

Do you have any references for lowering the health risk?

not offhand, however, as others have mentioned it removes the chemical additives that are abundant normally. It is also possible to filter your hand-rolled cigs. The cancer risk from the tobacco is still the same though. If you are gonna smoke, hand-rolled is a much better alternative, if only for cost alone.

And you can say, with no room for doubt, that these "additives," whatever they might be, are all bad, and make up for the filters included in factory made cigarrettes? And any additional risk they may convey is significant in comparison to a regular factory cigarrette? And that the "additive free" tobacco really has no "additives?" A peer-reviewed citation might convince me, but otherwise I think you're just guessing.

One issue with tobacco is that fertilizers frequently (if not always) contain phosphorous with above background radiation levels, and hence most (if not all) tobacco also contains radioactive phosphorous. Does fertilizer count as an additive? I suspect it doesn't.

Note that I'm no way defending tobacco companies or smoking, but when it comes to cancer, I tend to pick over the evidence (or lack thereof) very carfeully.

 

[grohl]

Originally posted by: confused1234
actually he is kinda right. if you get 100% PURE tobacco with absolutely nothing added then its healthier then store bought cigs. but the problem is that crap is so hard to buy in the USA. an example of this is india. they smoke a lot, and the cancer rates are far below then what they are in the USA. <that only applied to the smokers btw

I call BS on this

 

[imported_LoKe]

Originally posted by: grohl

Originally posted by: confused1234
actually he is kinda right. if you get 100% PURE tobacco with absolutely nothing added then its healthier then store bought cigs. but the problem is that crap is so hard to buy in the USA. an example of this is india. they smoke a lot, and the cancer rates are far below then what they are in the USA. <that only applied to the smokers btw

I call BS on this

Why? Obviously if there's no additives then it would be less deathly. You're still gonna' die, it's just going to take a little longer.

 

[imported_Baloo]

Tobacco without the additives found in commercial products is much less addictive, not to mention that some of those additives are very bad for health. Take ammonia, for example, a common additive in pretty much all over-the-counter cigarettes. Just take a whiff from a jar of ammonia, you will know how nasty that is. It is mind boggling some of the things cigarette makers put in their tobacco. Look it up sometime. You brother certainly is not an idiot to switch, and probably has a life, unlike all those here who are quick to call others idiots. Just a little clue for you people, it matters not how many people you knock down, you will never make up for your poor self esteem, those you call idiots are actually better than you can ever be. With that said, what does it say about you when you call someone an idiot?

 

[Deleted member 4644]

Originally posted by: Platypus
Hahaha, yes, he is full of sh!t. I believe regardless of the source, burning tobacco has active carcinogens

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: LoKe

Originally posted by: grohl

Originally posted by: confused1234
actually he is kinda right. if you get 100% PURE tobacco with absolutely nothing added then its healthier then store bought cigs. but the problem is that crap is so hard to buy in the USA. an example of this is india. they smoke a lot, and the cancer rates are far below then what they are in the USA. <that only applied to the smokers btw

I call BS on this

Why? Obviously if there's no additives then it would be less deathly. You're still gonna' die, it's just going to take a little longer.

What are these additives? Can you name the molecules and how (or if) they contribute to carcinogenesis or emphysema or other tobacco-related illness? Water could be called an additive.

 

[imported_LoKe]

Originally posted by: Gibsons
What are these additives? Can you name the molecules and how (or if) they contribute to carcinogenesis or emphysema or other tobacco-related illness? Water could be called an additive.

* Additives are used to make cigarettes that provide high levels of 'free' nicotine which increases the addictive 'kick' of the nicotine. Ammonium compounds can fulfil this role by raising the alkalinity of smoke
* Additives are used to enhance the taste of tobacco smoke, to make the product more desirable to consumers. Although seemingly innocuous the addition of flavourings making the cigarette 'attractive' and 'palatable' is in itself cause for concern.
* Sweeteners and chocolate may help to make cigarettes more palatable to children and first time users; eugenol and menthol numb the throat so the smoker cannot feel the smoke's aggravating effects.
* Additives such as cocoa may be used to dilate the airways allowing the smoke an easier and deeper passage into the lungs exposing the body to more nicotine and higher levels of tar.
* Some additives are toxic or addictive in their own right or in combination. When additives are burned, new products of combustion are formed and these may be toxic or pharmacologically active.
* Additives are used to mask the smell and visibility of side-stream smoke, making it harder for people to protect themselves and undermining claims that smoking is anti-social without at the same time reducing the health risks of passive smoking.

 

[Eeezee]

He's partially right. The fact that he's getting "pure tobacco" doesn't make them much safer, but cigarette companies include various additives and other ingredients. The difference is negligible.

It's not HEALTHY, but it's slightly healthier. He's still a hippy, but not because he believes that rolling your own cigarettes is healthy.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: LoKe

Originally posted by: Gibsons
What are these additives? Can you name the molecules and how (or if) they contribute to carcinogenesis or emphysema or other tobacco-related illness? Water could be called an additive.

* Additives are used to make cigarettes that provide high levels of 'free' nicotine which increases the addictive 'kick' of the nicotine. Ammonium compounds can fulfil this role by raising the alkalinity of smoke
* Additives are used to enhance the taste of tobacco smoke, to make the product more desirable to consumers. Although seemingly innocuous the addition of flavourings making the cigarette 'attractive' and 'palatable' is in itself cause for concern.
* Sweeteners and chocolate may help to make cigarettes more palatable to children and first time users; eugenol and menthol numb the throat so the smoker cannot feel the smoke's aggravating effects.
* Additives such as cocoa may be used to dilate the airways allowing the smoke an easier and deeper passage into the lungs exposing the body to more nicotine and higher levels of tar.
* Some additives are toxic or addictive in their own right or in combination. When additives are burned, new products of combustion are formed and these may be toxic or pharmacologically active.
* Additives are used to mask the smell and visibility of side-stream smoke, making it harder for people to protect themselves and undermining claims that smoking is anti-social without at the same time reducing the health risks of passive smoking.

Ammonium - leads to more nicotine "kick" which may lead to lower total consumption of toboacco. Good or bad?

menthol, eugenol - okay. How many cigarrettes contain these?

cocoa - "may" be used. not necessarily added to any cigarettes. Or most, or all? Meaningless without more data. Oncwe again, remember that added exposure to nicotine usually leads to less total consumption. What's causing the cancer, nicotine or something else?

"some additives" - which ones?

What about additives not mentioned that might have an opposite effect to those mentioned?

 

[Gibsons]

double-post, sorry

 

[imported_LoKe]

What about additives not mentioned that might have an opposite effect to those mentioned?

I've supported my claims. If you're going to say that tobacco wasn't intentionally modified to be addictive, then I'll say you're ignorant until you back it up.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: LoKe

What about additives not mentioned that might have an opposite effect to those mentioned?

I've supported my claims. If you're going to say that tobacco wasn't intentionally modified to be addictive, then I'll say you're ignorant until you back it up.

Modified to be deliver more nicotine? yes, almost certainly.

More toxic on a per-dose basis? That's a question that I haven't seen any answer to.

 

[imported_LoKe]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: LoKe

What about additives not mentioned that might have an opposite effect to those mentioned?

I've supported my claims. If you're going to say that tobacco wasn't intentionally modified to be addictive, then I'll say you're ignorant until you back it up.

Modified to be deliver more nicotine? yes, almost certainly.

More toxic on a per-dose basis? That's a question that I haven't seen any answer to.

Some additives are toxic or addictive in their own right or in combination. When additives are burned, new products of combustion are formed and these may be toxic or pharmacologically active.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: LoKe

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: LoKe

What about additives not mentioned that might have an opposite effect to those mentioned?

I've supported my claims. If you're going to say that tobacco wasn't intentionally modified to be addictive, then I'll say you're ignorant until you back it up.

Modified to be deliver more nicotine? yes, almost certainly.

More toxic on a per-dose basis? That's a question that I haven't seen any answer to.

Some additives are toxic or addictive in their own right or in combination. When additives are burned, new products of combustion are formed and these may be toxic or pharmacologically active.

What additives are toxic or addictive? Not saying the above info is wrong, but I refuse to believe it until provided specific information.

And again, we're talking about smoking this form or that form of tobacco. So addiction to tobacco/nicotine is a given. The question is which if any is more harmful to ones health.

And again, a substance which enhances nicotine delivery can easily be argued to reduce the harm from using tobacco due to decreased total consumption (assuming again we're talking about consumers vs consumers, not consumers vs. non-consumers)

 

[Xyclone]

Smoke in lungs = 8% chance of developing lung cancer = you got lucky you cancerous bastage, have fun = death.

 

[imported_LoKe]

Gibson, are you missing the whole "Some additives are toxic..." part?

 

[jonessoda]

Your brother is a dumba$$. It's cheaper, yes. They are NOT, rpt NOT healthier. Smoking is ALWAYS hazardous to your health, and I say this as an occasional smoker.

 

[Legend]

Tobacco absorbs something that's slightly radioactive, and it sticks inside your lungs with tar. The tar alone is going to cause problems. A little internal radiation isn't going to help.

 

[miniMUNCH]

Natural, untreated tobacco smokes are available for sale.

Nat sherman's and Davidoff's are all natural...at least they were when I last puchased some a few years back (I smoke every great once and a while).

There are other cheaper brands that are all natural.

 

[laketrout]

I think the obvious answer is that your brother needs to start chewing tobacco. No harm to his lungs that way. Just a couple of conveniently placed spittoons and he's ready to go!

Just kidding. It always amazes me that anyone willingly puts anything like that into their body.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: LoKe
Gibson, are you missing the whole "Some additives are toxic..." part?

No, not at all.

I simply don't trust such slippery, plastic, undefined language like "some additives." Define the additives and tell me what they do. Or you're just speculating.

I also would like to know what such claims mean in the context of smoking tobacco, with all the other additives and products that are introduced at the same time by tobacco smoking.

Just FYI: My Ph.D is in molecular genetics, my dissertation was on the genetic causes of an odd/rare type of cancer. That's the basis of my very skeptical/critical attitude of any claims made about cancer (in either direction). If you're going to make a claim, back it up: define your terms precisely (molecule by molecule), show some data.

Just in case there's any confusion: I don't think there's any doubt that tobacco usage contributes heavily to the risk of contracting cancer. I don't use tobacco. My big concern with a lot of the claims (for maybe the third time this thread) is that the additives (ammonium as an example) will increase nicotine delivery, and therefore decrease (arguably) tobacco usage - and therefore, perhaps, exposure to carcinogenic compounds.

It's very difficult to distinguish changes in behavior from chemical/biological effects. If you add a chemical that only improves the taste of tobacco - and does nothing else - does that make it carcinogen? No. Does it increase the risk of cancer? If you adjust for tobacco consumption, it does not (groups smoking the same amount with or without hypothetical additive). If you do account for increased usage... maybe it does.