/fa/ - Fashion

>>13528075
American spirit light blues

cig cases are retarded. get a black plastic bic, take the safety off. rubberband it to your current pack

only smoke parliament
clipper or brown bic

Khalif black, davidoff , dunhill, treasure kinda expensive tho if you go for the looks, i actually like more the skinny cuban cigars like the pantella (the ones Clint Eastwood smoked in the good the bad and the ugly) fot lighting i use a metal clipper, a black bic or a copper zippo

>>13528075
>marlboro box for whatever cig you smoke
>whatever you smoke better have an orange filter
>brass zippo or black or white bic, safety off

>>13528082
This, but buy a brass Zippo.
Put it in the small pocket of your jeans, and when you light one up, always sit down first, then use your leg as a base for the 1-2 Zippo lighting motion.
Open the top of the Zippo using motion one, and strike the flint with motion two.
No cigarette case, that's kinda try hard.

>>13528123
>Marlboro box
Should I buy a pack of Marlboro to put my american spirits in?

>>13528134
Do american spirits have brown filters? If so - yes. Smoke the marlboro first though

>>13528075
Smoking isn't cool.

>>13528082
>>13528123
what about if I roll my own smokes? I would have just skipped buying a case and put them in an old marlboro reds box, but I figured the box would get super beat up after a while.

(Unfortunately the papers I use have a particularly un-aesthetic logo on them, I need to get some more from a different brand.)

>>13528282
Rolled smokes are alright. Brown filter cigs are aesthetic always, the marlboro box being the most pleasing to the eye. The only time a case is acceptable is when you roll your own, so make sure you get a really minimalist one that doesn't make you look too tryhardy.

>>13528082
I use a cigarette case because of australian plain packaging laws for cigarettes, they look very un/fa/

>>13528075
dont smoke

>>13528075
Dot smoke, retard

>>13528129
Because doing the two-motions Zippo thing isnt tryhard at all

I have a Lucky Strike metal case that I had back when I was in the military which I used to store my rolling papers, tobacco and filters
It suffered a lot because of the field condition but I love that case
There's little reason to use a case now because the tobacco comes in a ziplock fashion

Impress us with your good old fag looks in 15 years while we all have poor skin, yellow teeth, and shite lungs. OP don't smoke

>>13528075
if you're gonna do it, make sure it's organic. so much wack stuff goes in conventional tobacco. and yeah ryo is best obv, if not str8 pipe.

also consider the ceramic vaporiser, removes a lot of hassle and will lessen impact on your health.

>>13528134
Bro you shouldn't be smoking.

Just be a man and start smoking cigars already, you'll save money and tune down smoking too while you're at. (Saving money assuming you're a one pack a day smoker and tune to a cigar / day, which would still be a stupidly large amount)

>>13528075
you shouldnt smoke, sure you would look cool around other smokers but for people who dont smoke you look like a loser with depression who smells really bad
think who you are trying to impress

the only /fa/ american cigarettes are filterless camels, i don't make the rules

This thread is hilarious

>thinking that smoking makes you look cool
if anything nowadays it makes you look like a tryhard, maybe if you were to today in the 60s-80s then it would've looked

>>13528199
You’re not cool

>>13528395
>>13528400
>>13528932
>>13528985
>>13529330
1/?
Smoking is not bad for you

All associations of smoking and cancer are the result of non-randomized epidemiological studies, even in animals (hard science, actual experimental studies, with forced tubing to deliver tobacco 24/7, scientists are unable to induce lung cancer with tobacco smoke. In fact tobacco smoke sometimes extended the life spans in low doses and would protect against random induced lung cancer.

Now most will say “i have a relative who died from smoking a pack a day for 45 years”

This is a very biased “post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy based arising from flawed anecdotal observation and incomplete information. You do not know if the smoking caused cancer. You see that he smoked and you blame the smoking for causing it.

I’m willing to bet that relative quit before he got cancer. As crazy as it may sound tobacco actually suppresses various cancer growth factors- the majority of smokers who get cancer are those who suddenly stop because these cancer growth factors like IGF-1, which were previously suppressed by the tobacco use, were “uperegulated”.

If you will find the following paper by cross, et al

“Carcinogenic effect of radon daughters, uranium ore dust and cigarette smoke in beagle dogs”

You will see that the tobacco smoke has an anti carcinogenic effects if anything the tobacco use bought that relative more years of life to which you should be thankful.

>>13529435
Tobacco smoke has a myriad of benefits such as anti inflammatory, cognitive enhancing, anti carcinogenic, age extension, and testosterone raising benefits. The opportunity cost of not consuming tobacco far exceeds the dollar cost of buying or rolling a pack of unfiltered cigarettes

Anti inflammatory
“Acute cigarette smoke has a suppressive effect on the number of eosinophils and several inflammatory cytokines, possibly due to the anti inflammatory effect of carbon monoxide”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1747102/pdf/v059p00713.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10742149

Cognitive enhancing
Tobbaco smoke contains MAOIs,nicotine,Coenzyme Q10, that are known to positively affect cognition

Anti carcinogenic
See the randon dog study

Age extension
Increases telemere length
Uperegulates KLOTHO

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4585559/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16517060?dopt=citation

Raise testosterone + stops estrogen

This is why smoking while pregnant is harmful

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1281267/

http://www.hormones.gr/8449/article/cigarette-smoking-has-a-positive-and….html

Hard science does not lie

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9608635

“No statistically significant increases the incidence of malignant lung tumors was seen in either species as a result of smoke exposure, a finding that does not agree with the results of epidemiological studies in humans”

>>13529448
Now some people may say “you can’t smoke and be healthy at the same time”

Well I would point you to roger bannister, if you’re an avid runner you know this man broke the first 4 minute mile and smoked a pack a day

Just look at Jeanne Calment, she lived to be 122 years old, the oldest person to ever live. She cycled and fenced well into her 60s and smoked every day since she was a teen

You might also say “what about the over 7000 deadly chemicals?”

Just listen to what Michael J McFadden author of “dissecting anti smokers brains” and tobakkonacht-the anti smoking end game” has to say

Makaila, I’m not clear on why you feel the extra chemicals are deadly. You do realize that just because something is deadly or innocent in its natural form doesn’t always mean that it’s deadly or natural after undergoing combustion, right?
I think the tobacco industry had to submit a list of what it might add to cigarettes and the list was of 599 additives. Some of those would be for flavoring, some as preservatives, some to hold moisture so if a pack was open for several days or more in low humidity the tobacco wouldn’t dry out, some to make the tobacco burn slower or fast or hotter or cooler for various reasons, some perhaps in an attempt to make the smoke “safer” according to whatever theories there were about what was safer or more dangerous, etc.
When some tobacco companies tried marketing “All Natural” cigarettes the federal government jumped on them and told them they had to explicitly state that “No Additives Does NOT Mean A Safer Cigarette.”
Well, if you believe the federal government then the inverse of that is unavoidable: I.E. “Additives Do Not Mean A More Dangerous Cigarette.”
So there you have it straight from the U.S. Government…
… the same folks who’ll tell you that secondhand smoke is deadlier than first hand smoke and that thirdhand smoke will make you grow an extra head or some such.

>>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

>>13529435
>>13529448
lol

>>13528075
Skip fag sticks and smoke cigars. Go with maduros if you want something thinner/quicker.

>>13529250
why the fuck do they let trailer parks have internet

>>13529461
>skip fag sticks and move forward to thicc fags
lol

>>13529457
Theyve actually found no correlation with increased worsening or symptoms for smoking. Lungs die at the same rate either way. Dont have a source but heard it from a conference.

T. Alfa1antitrypsine-deficient

>>13529461
>fag sticks

why do i hate cole sprouse so much?

>>13529435
>>13529448
>>13529449
>>13529457
high IQ posts

>>13529520
cause his life is suite-er than yours

>>13529435
nicotine has been proven to accelerate the rate of tumor growth in rats. smoking is terrible for you, get your head out of your ass. this is coming from an occaisional smoker

>>13529435
>>13529448
>>13529449
>>13529457
tfw to pseudo-intelligent

>>13529618
This study?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/17661225/

>Male and female strain A mice exposed to 5 months to tobacco smoke and then kept for another 4 months in air respond to tobacco smoke with increased lung tumor multiplicities. However, the increase over background levels is comparatively small, making it difficult to detect significant differences when the effects of chemopreventive agents are evaluated

>>13529618
let him live in ignorance mate, if he's being pushy let life teach him the hard way

>>13529720
>claims I’m the ignorant one
>doesn’t even seek out information who’d himself he simply takes what is forced down his throat in PSAs and government funded commercials and “studies”

Proverbs 23:9
>do not speak to a fool, for he will despise the wisdom of your words

>>13529752
oh no...