/lit/ - Literature

>>12122334
It's less conspiratorial than that but basically yes. Read Dr. Whitby's books: "The Smoking Scare Debunked" and "Smoking is Good for You".
>>12122348
That's because the New World had yet to be discovered.
Kant, Schopenhauer, and most great philosophers, scientists, writers, and composers the past 500 years were smokers. It is not a hedonistic drug which calls into question as to whether it is a "vice". It's an anti-vice as it stimulates the brain to think; the idle mind is the devil's workshop.

>>12108772
Based on? Weak-sauce, non-randomized epidemiological studies and the the NPC tier logic of "SMOKE= BAD, DUH"?
There has yet to be any hard studies involving healthy animal subjects subject to actual tobacco smoke to ever go on to get cancer. The reason the human studies differ so much is because they are poorly designed and seldom isolate for life-style factors.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9608635

Everyone should at least be skeptical of claims that tobacco is harmful, even if they are non-smokers, and entertain opposing arguments. Please examined the two books linked. Dr. Whitby's arguments against anti-smoking 'science' are still valid today considering anti-smoking science has not changed one bit:
>The Smoking Scare Debunked
http://wispofsmoke.net/PDFs/Whitby.pdf

>Smoking is Good For You
https://www.scribd.com/document/44685607/Smoking-is-Good-for-You-William-T-Whitby

>>12096348
Tobacco certainly is. Intelligent people benefit most from tobacco yet are dissuaded from it. They never bother to dive into the issue because the case is settled right? Obviously bad? DUDE CANCER?
I never smoked until my 20s from the exact same reasons. Yet, one day I realized these are all paper tigers built upon weak non-randomized epidemiological studies that never adjust for lifestyle factors! Not only that, they stand in direct contradiction to the hard science, to date, in which the tobacco smoking group, fails to exhibit increased rates of carcinogenesis in healthy animal subjects.

>The Smoking Scare Debunked
http://wispofsmoke.net/PDFs/Whitby.pdf

>Smoking is Good For You
https://www.scribd.com/document/44685607/Smoking-is-Good-for-You-William-T-Whitby

>>12097828
Can you support your claims?

>>12076093
Just switch to roll your own cigarettes instead. The best writers have always been tobacco smokers. If I could afford to smoke daily, I would.

>>12041960
Smoking bought him a few extra years.

>>11962341
They hate everyone who smokes the youth elixir panacea tobacco.

Reminder, tobacco smoking does not cause cancer and all claims that it does are based on faulty non-randomized epidemiological studies that try to prove causation from a (contrived) correlation.

To this very day, scientists are unable to induce cancer in animals using tobacco smoke. If it caused cancer, surely experimental studies (hard science) would show the same results as the human epidemiological ones.
See for yourself.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9608635
>No statistically significant increase in 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. Possible reasons for this lack of correlation are given.

Not only is it harmless, it confers a number of health benefits. It has nootropic, life-extending, anti-inflammatory and anti-carcinogenic effects. The overwhelming majority of supercentarians (ie, those living in excess of 100 years) were smokers.
Smokers have longer telemers and smoking itself is known to upregulate KLOTHO expression which is associated with longevity. Go ahead and look around you for something that has this many medicinal benefits – you will find nothing coming close.

I would never advocate that ANYONE smoke cheap, mass produced cigarettes laden with fire-safe chemicals like polyvinyl acetate [a neutoxic glue] with (known defective) and filters on them.

The filters deposit fine strands of cellulose acetate fibers directly into the lung (which themselves are often in fire retardants), eventually resulting inflaming and irreversibly damaging lung tissue.
Worse, the filters aeorsolize the smoke (not so dissimilar to nanoparticle toxicity), allowing it to penetrate much more deeply into the lung than it otherwise would (filters strands included).

https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article-abstract/109/12/djx075/3836090/Cigarette-Filter-Ventilation-and-its-Relationship

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/11/suppl_1/i51

In fact, I would advocate rolling your own cigarettes which in the USA costs under $1 per pack. The benefits will easily exceed the cost.

Any intelligent person should be able to evaluate the case and evidence presented before them and conclude, at the very least, the the harms of tobacco use are grossly exaggerated.