/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10623986
Only if you use safer ingredients/materials.

the stuff you buy in bags is just as bad as the stuff in regular cigarettes

Safer, safest mean prudent sourcing, buy from Redskin.
Rolling paper could have Firesafe self extinguish carpet glue also.

>>10623986
Smoke weed, fagi

>>10623986
Not really. Pure, natural tobacco is still carcinogenic

>>10624023
Saf"er" dummy

>>10624008
came here to post this

>>10624008
Cringe

>>10624032
If it is safer it is negligibly safer

why do people like ciggys? When I tried one I just became dizzy and nauseous.

>>10624047
Have sex

>>10624075
if you're not a pussy, the dizzy feeling is pleasurable

>>10624075
Cigarettes are disgusting cancer sticks. Smoking them makes you smell bad, ruins your health and offers no real pleasure besides an addiction.
Unless of course you are an actual man with real balls. Then ciggys are life's ultimate pleasure.

>>10623997
Wrong.

>>10624075
For me, nicotine is relaxing and helps clear my head. If you felt dizzy and/or nauseous, you probably smoked more than you should have, especially if you have no tolerance.

>>10624064
yeah you know the smoked tar and preservatives isn't really much worse than straight tobacco /s

>>10624287
>he thinks that tar is an ingredient added to the tobacco and not a natural product of its combustion
Retard

>>10624287
btw you just outted yourself with the "/s". you can go back now.

>>10623997

>>10624287
> /s
Nigger get the fuck out

>>10624023
>Not really. Pure, natural tobacco is still carcinogenic
Wrong.
Tobacco smoke itself has never been proven to be carcinogenic, which is why it fails to induce cancer in any experimental study at rates above control in any species tested. The case that it is carcinogenic rests on non-randomized epidemiological studies. Because tobacco fails to induce cancer, researchers have to point to specific ingredients in it (straw man), as the proposed agents. However, this is a dishonest argument as say the benzopyrenes are found in greater quantities in seared meats, and trace heavy metals are found in all soil grown plants, at similar or greater levels. There also are anticarcinogenic constituents such as polyphenols and other antioxidants, which mitigate any potentials carcninogens. Smokers have lower levels of IGF-1, a marker associated with cancer in old age.


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.

>>10624491
Can confirm... dad smoked for 40+ years in the boomer age of no filter... he is 75 years old. No cancer. Mom ate healthy and jogged every day. Died at 51 from breast cancer.
Bob Dylan still smokes Marlboro reds plus all the heroin and coke he was doing... he's still singing.

Cancer is a spook.

>>10624547
See the third study in that picture.
People ignore the sudden effect of stopping smoking can trigger cancer in smokers. So when some finally cave in and quit, they often die because of that advice. People who told a loved one to stop smoking only to see them get cancer a few years later. They're guilty of killing them.

>>10624561
But why though? Why does stopping smoking give you cancer?.
I'm nearly 30... been smoker for 12 years now... not really thinking of quitting but every time I puff on a cigarette I'm thinking it just can't be good to inhale particulates of any kind.

>>10624561
Also do you think I should move to vaping? Government is taxing the hell out of cigarettes

>>10624576
Tobacco suppresses cancer markers like IGF-1. Taking this away on the body suddenly disrupts its previous adaptions, the homeostatic norm. It's like abruptly discontinuing several drugs a patient has been on for decades.
Better to reduce the quantity of cigarettes smoked. One or two hand rolled cigarettes a day isn't correlated with any mortality risk.

>>10624588
I read somewhere that a glass of wine has the cancer risk equivalent of 5 cigarettes per week or something which is ridiculous because most people pound beers like it's nothing then get shitfaced every weekend so that's like smoking a whole pack of smokes every day.........

I'm not a heavy smoker my average is 6 cigarettes per day. You know what? Even if there is that much risk of cancer I would still smoke because I don't want to live without nicotine. So this vaping thing + government tax is making me consider moving to vaping... should I do it?

>>10624588
Also isn't the danger of cigarettes more than only cancer? It's linked to heart disease and stroke risk.

>>10624593
>I reason somewhere [something very unbelievable]
Damn, a highly cogent argument. I smoke too and this thread is retarded.

>>10624602
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-47723704
Sorry not a glass of wine but a whole bottle (750ml) is equivalent to 10 cigarettes. Wine is, what, 12-14% alcohol by volume? That's 105 ml of ethanol... think of that when you're drinking your 6 packs and tequila shots on the weekend.....

>>10624614
by comparison a shot glass is around 40ml... vodka is 40-60% alcohol by volume... 4-5 shots and you're in cancer city.

A beer can is 355ml or so of 5-7% alcohol by volume. One 6 pack and you're already blowing past cancer territory

>>10624309
That image doesn't necessarily answer the question of whether rolled cigarettes are safer - all of those compounds could still exist in bagged tobacco and rolling paper.

Most tobacco scientists at my university and others acknowledge that pure tobacco smoke, free of carcinogens, doesn’t increase cancer risk.

>>10624654
>"tobacco scientists"

>>10624614
>alcoholics are susceptible to cancer
This isn't news. It doesn't imply that cigarettes aren't still terrible for you.

I'm a singer. I smoke rollies. When I have to smoke tailor mades or even vape, it fucks with my voice way worse than rollies ever do. Don't know what that translates into safety wise I dunno, but thats my empirical 2 cents

>>10624696
They're not.

>>10624593
Vaping is worse on the cardiovascular system because it lacks the nitric oxide stimulation of tobacco. Higher BP. Also is anxiogenic unlike pure tobacco. No antidepressant effect. Tobacco is superior in every way.

>>10624064
That dude wasn't me. Pretty sure the stuff in a five pound bag for ten bucks wasn't chemically taken apart and put back together to keep you coming back for more the way that big name smokes are and whatever they are doing now to make them extinguish after ten seconds with no huffing can't be good for you. Funny that they can't manage a reasonable calibration on that. Now lazy smokers who just take three drags are encouraged to take twenty so they don't have to light up again.
t.nonsmoker.