Cigarettes

[surfingbudda]

Ya I never use products with chemicals I can't pronounce . Thats why I use natural deodorant, toothpaste and everything else. Actually when I when back home for thanksgiving, I had forgotten my natural toothpaste, so I used my dad's pepsodent toothpaste which used to taste mild compared to crest, however when I used it, it almost made me gag and felt like a car crash in my mouth( not fun ) and I felt sick all night. So the next day I was forced to make a trip to my local whole foods to buy a more natural brand

[Seth Ananda]

Funny topic.

I smoked for years and it really damaged my health.

 

Weird that I even started as I watched my uncle die of smoking based emphysema. He had the whole in his neck which he used to smoke through, but his lungs were so filled with tar that he basicly drowned in his own Lung juices...

 

On the other hand I had two great grand parents that lived over 100. One was Grandpa, a vegetarian seventh day adventist, who was doing his morning exercise, [push ups, sit ups and a mile walk] up too the day he died. He was very healthy with no typical old age complications, senses in tact and comfortable in his body. He made it too 106.

The other my great grand ma, on my fathers side who made it 105. She smoked from her teens till tombstone, was in and out of hospitals in her old age, and was constantly medicated for pain relief. she lost most of her mobility, her senses and her mind.

 

I know a lot of Midwives, and none of them ever look forward to helping a smoker birth. The placenta comes out a shredded disintegrating stinking thing. [with varying degree's depending on the smoking intensity]

To me that is criminal.

 

What about the lungs? sacks made of sacks made of sacks, a seriously fractal organ that at the bottom end is fine enough to pump oxygen into blood cells?

 

What crazy person wants to coat them with a toxic coating full of unpronounceable ingredients?

 

Smoking is only Legal cause the gov gets to tax it, and because it makes work bearable for cattle everywhere.

 

Now just to add heat to this debate... ...

We are allowed to defend ourselves from Direct attack on our well being, But why not from an Indirect attack? A smoker smoking near you is basicly punching you in the lungs, with total selfish callousness and zero regard for anyone but them selves. I say why not Deck the fool and stub out their cig on their fore head! lol what do you all think? Too Far?

 

 

And to counter Taomeows ridiculous assertions, the 'smoking is ok' research is funded bye guess who?

The Tobacco company. [Tada!]

There have been docco's done over the years on the incredible lengths Big Tobacco has gone to, to produce data to counter proper research. They have tried to hide their Influence and money in the many different tests that they site, but over and over again they get sprung. They really have pumped billions into the pro Tobacco movement. [naturally]

 

Smoking Killed Bill Hicks. Sad.

 

Over and out.

[bindo]

Bill Hicks died of pancreatic cancer.

[surfingbudda]

Both my grandfathers were chain smokers, smoking 2 packs a day, which is the reason I never met either one. I hear they were great guys though

[Samuel]

Both my grandfathers were chain smokers, smoking 2 packs a day, which is the reason I never met either one. I hear they were great guys though

 

My grandfather used to smoke too, 40 cigarettes a day (a ridiculous number I know), until he woke up one day and coughed so much that he blacked out. He quit, funnily enough.

 

Going back to the OP's question, I can't help with the chinese medicine side of things, but generally, smoking= not good for you. Ignoring the carcinogenic chemical composition of cigarette tar, and the presence of carbon monoxide (CO reduces the ability of the body to release oxygen to its cells¹²⁾ in the smoke, tar enters the lungs at around 580-700 degrees C³ and then cools until body temperature (circa 36 degrees C). The heat and toxicity of the tar is enough to kill cilia (tiny hair like projections that beat in unison to move mucous) on cells in the trachea, these cilia help keep the lungs free from dust and bacteria, loosing them increases chances of lung infections. The presence of the tar is also an irritant to the alveoli and causes the stimulation of macrophages, white blood cells (leucocytes), that eat irritant particles. They also secrete chemicals that digest elastin and collagen^4, two compounds that give alveoli elasticity, without it they loose their capacity to expand and contract, reducing lung capacity and causing emphysema.

 

But of course, tis totally up to the OP. People will do as people wanna do, and that's they way it should be, so long as they're not harming anyone else.

Edited December 7, 2010 by Samuel

[VCraigP]

Are You a Tobacco Addict ? You post like one.

 

I give you a minus for particularly pointless, troll-ish, self-absorbed, hijacking, de-railing comments out of resonance with the spirit of TTB and that add nothing to the discussion or the community

[Aetherous]

I give you a minus for particularly pointless, troll-ish, self-absorbed, hijacking, de-railing comments out of resonance with the spirit of TTB and that add nothing to the discussion or the community

 

Likewise.

[Aetherous]

Taomeow,

 

I kinda see your point. I like what you said about tobacco helping with constipation. I think many would be interested in learning the potential medicinal uses of tobacco...whether traditional medicine, shamanic or Western.

 

At least personally, I'm not interested in brainwashing/cult ideas. To make your argument you're taking the side that says smoking tobacco is actually healthy...that is something I find impossible to agree with! ...I must be brainwashed, right?

 

Anyway, for those who are interested in getting in touch with what tobacco really is, order some ceremonial tobacco (I wonder if there is a good season to order it so that it's more fresh...probably summer). Smell the leaf, look at it, feel it, chew on it, light it and smell the smoke. It is very uplifting in a unique way.

 

I think all things can either be medicine or poison depending on how they're used.

[surfingbudda]

Doesn't Moxibustion depict the TCM way of smoke used to promote health

[VCraigP]

 

I think all things can either be medicine or poison depending on how they're used.

 

 

Scotty

 

I think you and TM agree with the perspective of your last line here.

 

I also think that many are not reading TM's posts carefully. I do not see her advocating for or against smoking. I believe she is advocating for seeing the subject clearly and trying to discard the Politically correct filters.

 

I don't smoke. Both my parents did and it wasn't good for them IMO.

 

Sure TM may have hijacked the OP's question, but I agree that this subject has all sorts of baggage which needs setting aside in order to see the subject clearly.

 

anyway...TCM view of smoking tobacco is? anyone...

 

I am sure there must be an opinion from someone actually trained in TCM.

 

Also, "All IMA masters smoke" ??? My award for the most egregious generalization of this thread so far.

 

I wish I could comment about the effects of smoking according to TCM. I too am curious to know the answer to that.

 

Craig

[Taomeow]

Scotty

 

I think you and TM agree with the perspective of your last line here.

 

I also think that many are not reading TM's posts carefully. I do not see her advocating for or against smoking. I believe she is advocating for seeing the subject clearly and trying to discard the Politically correct filters.

 

I don't smoke. Both my parents did and it wasn't good for them IMO.

 

Sure TM may have hijacked the OP's question, but I agree that this subject has all sorts of baggage which needs setting aside in order to see the subject clearly.

 

anyway...TCM view of smoking tobacco is? anyone...

 

I am sure there must be an opinion from someone actually trained in TCM.

 

Also, "All IMA masters smoke" ??? My award for the most egregious generalization of this thread so far.

 

I wish I could comment about the effects of smoking according to TCM. I too am curious to know the answer to that.

 

Craig

 

Thank you once again for helping me formulate my own position with much clarity.

 

OK, there's two things I know about smoking tobacco (that's tobacco the sacred/medicinal herb in human use for 18,000 years, and as an agriculturally cultivated crop in the Andes for 6,000 years, NOT big tobacco's cocktail of chemicals slightly flavored with tobacco we all love to hate -- including me).

 

1. It is a powerful medicine (not "drug") with strong effects. Like any medicine, it should only be used by those who need it and shouldn't be used by those who don't. Like any strong medicine, it can be habit forming and used by those who don't need it, but research actually shows that people who don't need it do not get "addicted" to it (the term is "chippers" I believe -- people who might smoke "socially" but do not form the habit and can easily go for months or years without smoking, and if they do smoke, they stay in the low consumption range -- often something like one cigarette a day. Compare to Freud who smoked eighteen CIGARS a day and got mouth cancer. IMO, he smoked like that because he wanted to numb his mouth to the fact that his mouth was busy lying all the time, and cancer of the mouth was the outcome of lying, a health-damaging systemic distortion of function, smoking being his attempt at self-medication for the condition.)

 

Medicinal uses are both ancient and modern -- I have references to current, present-day American research into anticancer (sic) properties of tobacco, shockingly enough, and no, they weren't funded by big tobacco. As well as dozens of references to worldwide research into tobacco smoking preventing neuromuscular disorders (Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, MS) especially coupled with coffee drinking (an almost 100% prevention rate in this combo). Before Rockefeller medicine, tobacco smoking was the single most often prescribed medical intervention by MDs (sic) in the United States (sic), for conditions ranging from depression (safety and efficiency far surpassing those of designer molecules used today for the purpose) to digestive trouble of many kinds to allergies, while in ointments and tinctures tobacco preparations (recipes stolen or borrowed or purchased from Native Americans) were successfully battling cancer.

 

2. The ability of natural tobacco (NOT the commercial brands with neuroactive chemical drugs for additives designed to increase addictiveness and dependency -- big tobacco employs neuroscientists working specifically for this purpose) to form the habit is fully attributable to the fact that

 

...please start reading carefully here, please...

 

nicotinergic neural pathways (we have nicotine receptors in the brain -- we don't and can't have receptors in the brain for "drugs") act as a back-up system for dopaminergic pathways. I.e. if one's dopamine-norepinephrine axis is weak, due to (always) high levels of stress prenatally, in infancy, or in early childhood, nicotinergic pathways can be used instead to take on many of its functions. Dopaminergic pathways are the most significant stress mediation system the human being has; when they are weak developmentally or weakened environmentally, the resulting problems are numerous and range from mild to severe to deadly.

 

That's where nicotine comes into the picture. It is as sanctioned evolutionally as the need of the great apes and humans for vitamin C from dietary sources, which all other mammals (with the curious exception of the guinea pig) produce in their liver and do NOT require in the diet. We, however, get sick and die if we don't get it in adequate amounts from extraneous (plant) sources. We have exactly the same situation with nicotine, but unlike with vitamin C, it is not "all" members of the species that require it from extraneous sources, only "some" -- specifically those whose brains underproduce dopamine or have lost (or failed to develop early on, as in premature babies) an adequate number of receptors, or both. (Nicotine, in addition to having its own receptors in the brain, stimulates and preserves the existing ones for dopamine -- which is the reason behind its preventive role in diseases that are the outcome of the destruction of dopamine receptors -- MS, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and some types of age-related senility.)

 

So "addicted" smokers self-select for getting "addicted" in a situation where without this addiction (self-medication, really) they would be much worse off. They are using a medicine that has untoward effects -- which, however, are seldom anywhere near as bad as the bad effects of the underlying condition -- the systemic failure to mediate ANY type of stress, whether brought about by factors of emotional, psychological, infectious, environmental-toxic, exertion-related, or any other nature. Someone with a dopamine problem is a sitting duck for many illnesses, on top of high rates of suicide, violence, and all sorts of social maladaptation patterns. In many MANY cases, all it takes to eliminate ALL of these factors outta one's life is to activate the back-up system to take on the functions of the weak dopaminergic one -- the nicotinergic one.

 

Instead, they are being cut off from this option, brainwashed into believing they smoke because they are "bad," and self-righteously discriminated against by the less-than-stellar representatives of ALL races, nations, creeds, genders, sexual orientations and religious beliefs, which is more than any one of these ever had to endure, and aimed against people who are in the position of weakness (unless they are allowed to make themselves stronger) to begin with. A weakness which is invisible (it is not a skin color or a gender, not something obvious on the surface... it is in the BRAIN, stupid!). And of course exploited by commercial interests while at it (that's where big tobacco enters the picture). And left with the option of a troubled, unhealthy, and shortened life as their reward for being good and staying away from the only medicine out there that could change that. Beautiful.

 

I want anyone who is going to argue to actually read what I am saying. Someone who is heavily dependent on smoking is in a position of stress-mediating weakness from the get go, so whatever health problems this person may encounter in the future, he or she will encounter them more readily than someone who doesn't have the dopamine problem to begin with and combats ANY type of stress more successfully -- that's a lifelong disparity between the two categories. So there's no comparison that can be meaningfully made between the state of health of people who smoke and "can't quit" vs. people who are not into smoking -- they are coming from metabolically different health bases to begin with. Please let this sink in before I move on to TCM and hopefully get the topic back on track...

[Aetherous]

Nice post, TM.

 

I want anyone who is going to argue to actually read what I am saying. Someone who is heavily dependent on smoking is in a position of stress-mediating weakness from the get go, so whatever health problems this person may encounter in the future, he or she will encounter them more readily than someone who doesn't have the dopamine problem to begin with and combats ANY type of stress more successfully -- that's a lifelong disparity between the two categories. So there's no comparison that can be meaningfully made between the state of health of people who smoke and "can't quit" vs. people who are not into smoking -- they are coming from metabolically different health bases to begin with. Please let this sink in before I move on to TCM and hopefully get the topic back on track...

 

1) So most or all smokers/those who tend to become addicted have this stress-mediating weakness before they begin smoking? Where do you get this information? It doesn't seem scientific at all...just something made up to support your view. Not necessarily made up by you...possibly by someone else? Is the source legit? In my opinion, it's a weak argument.

 

2) If there are studies showing this, it's entirely possible that both smokers and non-smokers began with basically the same levels of stress, and smokers started losing dopaminergic pathways in favor of nicotinergic? I know you mentioned that tobacco strengthened the dopamine receptors, but is there somewhere you got this information? You should really add sources if you want to debate like this. I know it's a big hassle, but what you're saying doesn't seem accurate to me...seems very biased.

 

3) Yes, stress does kill us slowly, but there are other healthy ways to prevent it. Exercise, deep breathing, etc. You're not saying that tobacco is the only option for chronically stressed out people, are you? Because it's simply not.

 

4) You're making the argument that tobacco is okay for these stressed out people, but in saying that you're not saying that cigarettes are what they should smoke. You're saying they should roll their own with pure leaf. Just making that clear for everyone, in case someone wanted to go buy a pack of camels tonight to unwind.

 

5) Something sort of unrelated to what you said: is smoking the best option for administering nicotine? If the nicotine is the key thing, and smoking is potentially harmful, then people taking it medicinally should use it in another way.

 

Sorry if you think I didn't read your words, Taomeow. This is the best I can do. I went over them a few times before replying.

Edited December 7, 2010 by Scotty

[angelo]

I appreciate this discussion. Thanks...

[Taomeow]

Scotty,

 

my information is neither arbitrary, made up by me, or unresearched -- only unexpected, reflective of a position that has been laboriously made unpopular, new to those not exposed to other sides of the story, and unorthodox in the present set-up. I STRONGLY recommend reading this most enlightening book as a starting point in real research into the subject:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Tobacco-Cultural-History-Seduced-Civilization/dp/0802139604

 

You can look at some of the reviews at Amazon for starters, and satisfy yourself that it is neither "pro" nor "against" but instead clear, superbly researched (I remember 30+ pages of scientific references listings at the end -- I don't own the book, it was from the library so I can't verify, but I checked out many of them when I read it some ten years ago), and wonderfully written -- lively, witty, rich in historic fact (did you know, e.g., that our freedom and democracy, our Declaration of Independence, was designed and signed by people most of whom were tobacco farmers?..) -- and accurate. It will give anyone a much better perspective of what it is we are dealing with in reality than any and all vested-interest sources whence their dis-information has been coming so far -- both "pro" and "con."

 

Get your information and draw conclusions using a mind, not a repeat-the-repeaters device, is what I'm driving at. But "information" is key word. With primary sources addressed, not the repeat-the-repeaters antismoke screens and mirrors of propaganda. With actual scientific, historic, multicultural, experiential, facts to replace fiction. Ask your brain to do some leg work for a change of pace everyone who had it riding the syndicated train of "thought" for too long. Read a book... I'm not asking anyone to take my word for anything. I'm asking everyone to help me maintain faith in the human race, is all. I need that.

 

As for your (Scotty) other questions, if they remain unanswered after that, I'll be happy to answer to the best of my ability.

 

 

[Aetherous]

[Aetherous]

I STRONGLY recommend reading this most enlightening book as a starting point in real research into the subject:

 

Sweet, there's a Kindle version. I will read this, and once done, perhaps get back to this enjoyable topic.

[Taomeow]

Here are some studies on the effects of smoking tobacco, found on wikipedia...

 

The "German scientists" at the beginning should read "the Nazi scientists who were asked to back up the Nazi antismoking campaign." The rabbit hole wikipedia circumvents goes sooooooo deeeeeeep...

 

None of it was real science. It was propaganda machine manufacturing its products. Is all.

 

Good luck quitting the habit of using these products. I know it's hard... they are addictive, they are designed to be... but quitting them is the single healthiest thing one can do in this-here life.

[Aetherous]

If you have problems with a particular study, can you explain what they did wrong? How wasn't it real science? We shouldn't just take your word for it, of course. That would be repeating the repeaters.

 

What about the other studies? That German study is only one, out of at least 10...

[Procurator]

 

Also, "All IMA masters smoke" ??? My award for the most egregious generalization of this thread so far.

 

(shrug)

 

 

 

famous Peking Opera. One instructor's joints made audible cracking sounds as he executed each move (!), and almost to a man, each would start chain-smoking cigarettes when he had finished.

 

 

The old, tanned face is inscrutable, as the tall, stooped figure steps from between the ranks of waiting students. He sucks in the cold mountain air and calmly adjusts the silk shirt, stitched for him by his wife and which clashes incongruously with his old pair of trainers. Oblivious to both this and the crowd, he calmly stubs out a cigarette and launches

http://www.nickryan.net/articles/kungfu.html

 

himself into the Calling Crane

[Birch]

Thank you once again for helping me formulate my own position with much clarity.

 

OK, there's two things I know about smoking tobacco (that's tobacco the sacred/medicinal herb in human use for 18,000 years, and as an agriculturally cultivated crop in the Andes for 6,000 years, NOT big tobacco's cocktail of chemicals slightly flavored with tobacco we all love to hate -- including me).

 

1. It is a powerful medicine (not "drug") with strong effects. Like any medicine, it should only be used by those who need it and shouldn't be used by those who don't. Like any strong medicine, it can be habit forming and used by those who don't need it, but research actually shows that people who don't need it do not get "addicted" to it (the term is "chippers" I believe -- people who might smoke "socially" but do not form the habit and can easily go for months or years without smoking, and if they do smoke, they stay in the low consumption range -- often something like one cigarette a day. Compare to Freud who smoked eighteen CIGARS a day and got mouth cancer. IMO, he smoked like that because he wanted to numb his mouth to the fact that his mouth was busy lying all the time, and cancer of the mouth was the outcome of lying, a health-damaging systemic distortion of function, smoking being his attempt at self-medication for the condition.)

 

Medicinal uses are both ancient and modern -- I have references to current, present-day American research into anticancer (sic) properties of tobacco, shockingly enough, and no, they weren't funded by big tobacco. As well as dozens of references to worldwide research into tobacco smoking preventing neuromuscular disorders (Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, MS) especially coupled with coffee drinking (an almost 100% prevention rate in this combo). Before Rockefeller medicine, tobacco smoking was the single most often prescribed medical intervention by MDs (sic) in the United States (sic), for conditions ranging from depression (safety and efficiency far surpassing those of designer molecules used today for the purpose) to digestive trouble of many kinds to allergies, while in ointments and tinctures tobacco preparations (recipes stolen or borrowed or purchased from Native Americans) were successfully battling cancer.

 

2. The ability of natural tobacco (NOT the commercial brands with neuroactive chemical drugs for additives designed to increase addictiveness and dependency -- big tobacco employs neuroscientists working specifically for this purpose) to form the habit is fully attributable to the fact that

 

...please start reading carefully here, please...

 

nicotinergic neural pathways (we have nicotine receptors in the brain -- we don't and can't have receptors in the brain for "drugs") act as a back-up system for dopaminergic pathways. I.e. if one's dopamine-norepinephrine axis is weak, due to (always) high levels of stress prenatally, in infancy, or in early childhood, nicotinergic pathways can be used instead to take on many of its functions. Dopaminergic pathways are the most significant stress mediation system the human being has; when they are weak developmentally or weakened environmentally, the resulting problems are numerous and range from mild to severe to deadly.

 

That's where nicotine comes into the picture. It is as sanctioned evolutionally as the need of the great apes and humans for vitamin C from dietary sources, which all other mammals (with the curious exception of the guinea pig) produce in their liver and do NOT require in the diet. We, however, get sick and die if we don't get it in adequate amounts from extraneous (plant) sources. We have exactly the same situation with nicotine, but unlike with vitamin C, it is not "all" members of the species that require it from extraneous sources, only "some" -- specifically those whose brains underproduce dopamine or have lost (or failed to develop early on, as in premature babies) an adequate number of receptors, or both. (Nicotine, in addition to having its own receptors in the brain, stimulates and preserves the existing ones for dopamine -- which is the reason behind its preventive role in diseases that are the outcome of the destruction of dopamine receptors -- MS, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and some types of age-related senility.)

 

So "addicted" smokers self-select for getting "addicted" in a situation where without this addiction (self-medication, really) they would be much worse off. They are using a medicine that has untoward effects -- which, however, are seldom anywhere near as bad as the bad effects of the underlying condition -- the systemic failure to mediate ANY type of stress, whether brought about by factors of emotional, psychological, infectious, environmental-toxic, exertion-related, or any other nature. Someone with a dopamine problem is a sitting duck for many illnesses, on top of high rates of suicide, violence, and all sorts of social maladaptation patterns. In many MANY cases, all it takes to eliminate ALL of these factors outta one's life is to activate the back-up system to take on the functions of the weak dopaminergic one -- the nicotinergic one.

 

Instead, they are being cut off from this option, brainwashed into believing they smoke because they are "bad," and self-righteously discriminated against by the less-than-stellar representatives of ALL races, nations, creeds, genders, sexual orientations and religious beliefs, which is more than any one of these ever had to endure, and aimed against people who are in the position of weakness (unless they are allowed to make themselves stronger) to begin with. A weakness which is invisible (it is not a skin color or a gender, not something obvious on the surface... it is in the BRAIN, stupid!). And of course exploited by commercial interests while at it (that's where big tobacco enters the picture). And left with the option of a troubled, unhealthy, and shortened life as their reward for being good and staying away from the only medicine out there that could change that. Beautiful.

 

I want anyone who is going to argue to actually read what I am saying. Someone who is heavily dependent on smoking is in a position of stress-mediating weakness from the get go, so whatever health problems this person may encounter in the future, he or she will encounter them more readily than someone who doesn't have the dopamine problem to begin with and combats ANY type of stress more successfully -- that's a lifelong disparity between the two categories. So there's no comparison that can be meaningfully made between the state of health of people who smoke and "can't quit" vs. people who are not into smoking -- they are coming from metabolically different health bases to begin with. Please let this sink in before I move on to TCM and hopefully get the topic back on track...

 

Excellent post and cogent with what I know about myself and my own attempts to rectify the "past".

I've suggested this book before but will do so again: http://www.amazon.com/Chemical-Carousel-Science-Beating-Addiction/dp/1439212996/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1291775537&sr=1-1

 

Of course "the past" cannot be rectified, but its incursion in the present very much so. I.e Taoist (or even Buddhist or Jainist, or Christian, or Sufi or whatever) practices ALL attempt to mitigate such (IMO/IME) However, one also may want to know what exactly such practices are "doing" for a given person. I'm tempted to single out Buddhist-specific practices due to the explicit emotional/neural consequences of the latter but I realise this may be a can of worms...