/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12122246]

*saves Mexican literature*

[Anonymous No.12122258]

>>12122246
Redpill me on southern Baja California. I've been considering taking a trip to the tip of the place.

[Anonymous No.12122270]

>>12122258
It's gringo-friendly as far as I know. Use common sense and don't go to dark places.

[Anonymous No.12122300]

Is he based and redpilled on women, Jews, and the failures of the democratic system?

[Anonymous No.12122320]

Reminder that smokers are better writers, tobacco is an mental elixir that stimulates the cognitive faculties, and smoking is not as bad as it is made out to be if you examine the studies for yourself.

[Anonymous No.12122325]

>>12122320

[Anonymous No.12122334]

>>12122325
>>12122320
wait a minute. is this why "they" tell us not to smoke? because its actually good for you?

[Anonymous No.12122340]

>>12122334
nicotine is good but make no mistake at the price it warrants

[Anonymous No.12122348]

>>12122320
Plato never knew about the existence of tobacco. Nietzsche didn't smoke or drink alcohol. I think I'll follow their example and abstain from nnecessary vices like smoking.

[Anonymous No.12122382]

>>12122334
Yup it's (((them))). Start smoking a couple packs a day for those huge mental gains, and, if you really want to be smarter, fucking neck yourself

[Anonymous No.12122390]

>>12122246
>Mexican literature
Did he save it from not existing by contributing the first notable work to it?

[Anonymous No.12122394]

>>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.

[Anonymous No.12122399]

>>12122390
The fact that you're ignorant about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It doesn't exist *for* you.

[Anonymous No.12122409]

>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

[Anonymous No.12122410]

Opium amphetamine and nicotine for the thinking mans cocktail

[Anonymous No.12122416]

>>12122382
what a cringe comment

[Anonymous No.12122417]

>>12122320
what do you smoke, m8? Camels, Lucky Strike, Marlboro?

[Anonymous No.12122429]

>>12122417
not op but i smoke american spirits. used to smoke marlboros

[Anonymous No.12122446]

>>12122417
Roll your own (or rather, tubed) unfiltered cigarettes, which can be had for under $1.50 cents for 20 cigarettes (a pack).. American Spirit, Organic or Perique blends. Norwegian Shag is decent too, hard to find.
Unfiltered cigarettes are actually better for you as you do not inhale as deeply.

[Anonymous No.12122461]

>>12122417
I would not advise commercial cigarettes in the anyways. The presence of additives and FSC, as well as low quality tobacco, can offset the benefits.

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

[Anonymous No.12122493]

>>12122417
no no dont buy big brand cigarettes.

[Anonymous No.12122498]

>>12122493
If you need to, stick with American spirit nonfilters.

[Anonymous No.12122507]

>>12122493
>>12122446
where can you even get natural tobacco to roll your own?

[Anonymous No.12122514]

>>12122507
Talk to your local tobacconist

[Anonymous No.12122564]

>>12122507
They sell RYO tobacco at most cigarette outlets.

[Anonymous No.12122601]

ay homes translate some of his books ese

[Anonymous No.12122611]

wtf, i love smoking now (unironically)

[Anonymous No.12122619]

>>12122409
really makes you think.

[Anonymous No.12122835]

Where do I start with Enrique?

[Anonymous No.12122894]

>>12122325
>dying from cancer or improved my IQ for a bit
idk

[Anonymous No.12122926]

>>12122894
Doesn't cause cancer. >>12122409 and >>12122394

[Anonymous No.12122933]

>>12122894
The candle that burns brightest lasts the shortest.

[Anonymous No.12123187]

>>12122320
t. phillip moris

[Anonymous No.12123203]

I'm pleb, can anyone give a quick rundown

[Anonymous No.12123359]

>>12122835
Sudden Death

[Anonymous No.12123504]

>>12123359
Thanks.
Good thanksgivings to you.

[Anonymous No.12124470]

>>12122409
is this true?

[Anonymous No.12125026]

>>12124470
Think for yourself. It's a reasonable counter argument. Most people have the NPC logic of SMOKE=BAD!

[Anonymous No.12125041]

>>12124470
No it's not fucking true. Anyone who smokes should be able to tell that it directly effects cardiovascular health, leading to an easy inference that smoking damages the lungs and therefore causing cancer.

[Anonymous No.12125043]

>>12125041
go to bed, mom

[Anonymous No.12125061]

>>12125041
>Anyone who smokes should be able to tell that it directly effects cardiovascular health, leading to an easy inference that smoking damages the lungs and therefore causing cancer.
>should be able to tell
So what you're saying is, you have no idea and your proposed mechanism is vague and simplified. Tobacco smoke fails to induce cancer in healthy animal subjects at rates higher than control. This stands in direct contradiction to your simplistic reasoning. The Japanese studies, now referred to as the Japanese smokers paradox, also contradict your claims of cardiovascular injury arising from tobacco.