Talk of tobacco is littered with crimethink. Do you like to smoke? You’re degenerate and a danger to public health. Do you think nicotine has medicinal benefits? You’re crazy at best, dangerous at worse and worthy of purging. Yet the great bulk of public tobacco knowledge is built upon lies, many of which aren’t even difficult to expose.
Consider this article. Bernd Mayer is trying to figure out the toxicity of nicotine. But why do that? After all, everyone, even wikipedia, knows that anything above 50 mg is fatal! Thankfully, he doesn’t listen to wikipedia and begins his own search, only to find that the basic bedrock for claims against nicotine with regards to toxicity are based on a very questionable 1906 self-experimentation by Germans who clearly didn’t know what they were talking about. And this number has been repeated again and again and again without being questioned or replicated. The animal studies showed a massive divergence from the 50mg mark. I myself have gone over this many times in all manner of situations, never once experiencing any of the toxicity symptoms, see here for one example well above 50mg.
This isn’t news, not really. The data has always been there. My first knowledge as to the basis of the 50mg claim actually comes from an even earlier work in the late 1800s, which is similarly based on little and the results also never replicated, also German. These Germans pharmacists don’t seem to have a good track record.
Yet, without facts, the mighty Tobacco control industry marches on. If you don’t know what that is, read this article. Even that article gets a lot wrong. It wisely questions the motives and connections between the tobacco public health apparatus and the pharmaceutical industry, yet fails to scrutinize the actual science of which the anti-tobacco crusade is based on. For example, does smoking tobacco actually cause lung cancer? NO, it doesn’t. And that’s the tip of the iceberg, what about second hand smoke. NO, see here. I could go on, but now that you know the data is out there the responsibility is upon you to use your already crimethink infested brain to discover the truth.
I grew up in an anti-smoking home, raised as an anti-smoking zealot. My own research later in life shattered my delusions on the matter, and after reflection as to the scope of my discovery and the immense benefits of tobacco, I decided to take up smoking for myself. For those of you who want to enhance your brains, I strongly encourage it.
Now enjoy a cute video on the matter and go light up a cigar.
PS. Kudos to Alrenous for raising the matter and introducing me to Mayer’s work, see his post here. This isn’t new to me, but the fact that other people are looking into it in a public manner is, and I am very happy about it. Well done Alrenous.
yeah. i love cigars. and they are still “acceptable” “because ‘man’ thing”. and it is easy to inhale when “the disapprovers” aren’t looking. and the nicotine off those bad boys….
LikeLike
By all means, smoke if you want to. It’s a personal choice, and to hell with anyone who would tell you otherwise.
However, the article you linked to contains this: “a US white male (USWM) cigarette smoker has an 8% lifetime chance of dying from lung cancer but the USWM nonsmoker also has a 1% chance of dying from lung cancer.”
Reversed, this means a USWM cigarette smoker’s risk of dying of lung cancer is 8 times that of a USWM non-smoker.
LikeLike
Yes, that is what the article says, and I mentioned I didn’t agree with all of it. When I make the claim ‘smoking doesn’t cause lung cancer’ I also look at other countries and other populations. Take Kuwait, Greece, or Japan. Kuwait has one of the highest smoking populations in the world, yet one of the lowest lung cancer rates as well. And this is a trend we see repeating. Lung Cancer incidence is concentrated in highly polluted or synthetic environments.
Now the average American cigarette is also, I’d say, a pollutant. Filled with a cocktail of nasty substances that almost exclusively destroy health, the only saving grace is nicotine. Nonetheless, if someone were to use the 8% number to demonstrate to me that Tobacco causes lung cancer, which is the usual claim. So there is a disconnect. Is it actually cigarettes leading to an increased risk? Or is it just pollution? Or perhaps its statistical fudging; Did you know that if you die in your sleep as a smoker, the American medical industry records that as a tobacco-caused death? That’s what they used to do anyways, they’d fudge the numbers, like we saw in the WHO and EPA reports on smoking.
Myself, I don’t want any part in those pollutants. Only non-sprayed tobacco for me, fresh from Virginia. We don’t really know what the true level of danger is, if any, so I prefer to take as many precautions as I can.
LikeLike
[…] offers more reasons to smoke, and more reasons not to not to, in Crimethink & Nicotine Toxicity. I’m not quite ready to declare it to be our positive duty to smoke, but I’m getting […]
LikeLike
[…] I think some of them, most certainly the private pharmaceuticals, see the writing on the wall. Tobacco is going to win eventually unless it’s support and consumption are completely stifled and the […]
LikeLike
[…] And unlike the case of dairy and grains the Tobacco question is hardly settled. Studies of tobacco as a whole, even of the lowest quality cigarettes, are full of anomalies. This is to say nothing of nicotine itself, proven time and time again to be a wonder drug. […]
LikeLike