/fa/ - Fashion

>>13529449
The studies that have been done have never found any significant differences between brands other than varying degrees of nicotine, carbon monoxide, and solid particulates (which they call “tar” to make it sound nasty). And again we have the Government, which used to demand the tobacco companies list those levels so consumers could choose safer cigarettes, now forbidding the tobacco companies from listing those levels because then consumers might think that smoking a super ultralight with 1mg “tar” might somehow be safer than smoking a Super CamelLuckyChesterfield Non Filter with 20mg “tar.”
Generally you can count on smoking more than occasionally or very lightly not being a good idea for your overall health, and on secondhand, thirdhand, or fourthhand smoke being pretty much inconsequential unless you’re boxed up in an airtight humidor with a chain smoker for a few decades. At this point it’s difficult even to say that regular high levels of secondary exposure in a smoking workplace for 40 years has any real effect on anyone without specific allergic-asthma or (perhaps) the one in ten-thousand or so with Alpha-Antitrypsin Deficiency.
Now… with all that as background, I’ll refer you to a site where people disagree with me on this general point of additives being fairly unimportant: Fauxbacco where you’ll see the argument made that “natural” tobacco is either much safer than commercial cigarettes or even completely safe. I don’t agree with them overall, but they do have at least some points, and they certainly make more sense than the self-contradictory federal government or the wackier antismoking organizations.


Here is some more literature and information on the subject
https://www.amazon.com/Dissecting-Antismokers-Brains-Michael-McFadden/dp/0974497908
https://www.amazon.com/Tobakkonacht-Antismoking-Endgame-Michael-McFadden/dp/0974497916
http://wispofsmoke.net
https://youtu.be/lVmYV8v8hpA

>>13461120
And I’ll assume you aren’t either judging by that post