Author Topic: natural tobacco  (Read 6603 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline svrn

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,884
    • View Profile
natural tobacco
« on: September 23, 2012, 04:13:49 am »
how bad is natural tobacco for you really? nobody used to get lung cancer from smoking.
-----------

Offline Neone

  • Warrior
  • ****
  • Posts: 276
    • View Profile
Re: natural tobacco
« Reply #1 on: September 23, 2012, 05:53:48 am »
I found that i developed a cough after a few days of trying out 'natural tobacco' recently, never had a cough from over 10 years of marijuana use though.

Only way you're going to find out though is to buy some and see how it effects you. I personally am not a fan of tobacco.
That's not paleo.

Offline svrn

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,884
    • View Profile
Re: natural tobacco
« Reply #2 on: September 23, 2012, 04:12:43 pm »
which natural tobacco did you try? i rad in jack herers matrijuana book that all tobacco in us must legally use radioactive fertilizer.
-----------

Offline aLptHW4k4y

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 447
    • View Profile
Re: natural tobacco
« Reply #3 on: September 23, 2012, 05:45:59 pm »
what's natural tobacco, I thought it's all the same stuff??

Offline Neone

  • Warrior
  • ****
  • Posts: 276
    • View Profile
Re: natural tobacco
« Reply #4 on: September 23, 2012, 11:30:56 pm »
My natural tobacco was tobacco leaf that this Indian woman I know grew. It was pretty natural :P
That's not paleo.

Offline svrn

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,884
    • View Profile
Re: natural tobacco
« Reply #5 on: September 24, 2012, 12:29:25 am »
thats awesome id like to try some tobacco like that. as far as i know the indians didnt smoke tobacco like white people do. It would be a smaller amount in a pipe every once in a while, not all day long. as far as i know there were no known negative effects observed from this.
-----------

Offline eveheart

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,315
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: natural tobacco
« Reply #6 on: September 24, 2012, 01:47:52 am »
what's natural tobacco, I thought it's all the same stuff??

"Famous" brands of cigarettes use additives in both the tobacco and the paper. Here is a wikipedia list of 599 additives to cigarettes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_additives_in_cigarettes
"I intend to live forever; so far, so good." -Steven Wright, comedian

Offline aLptHW4k4y

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 447
    • View Profile
Re: natural tobacco
« Reply #7 on: September 24, 2012, 02:54:56 am »
Wow, what's the reason for adding 599 (!!) things to something small like a cigarette?

Anyway, can't you find someone who grows tobacco? In my country it's a pretty popular agricultural crop and especially the poorer who are used to hard work are growing this stuff. In the end it's sold for like 3 euros/kg..
I've never seen anyone of those growing tobacco to be actually smoking the tobacco as is, they are still buying cigarettes.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2012, 03:02:56 am by aLptHW4k4y »

Offline raw-al

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,961
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: natural tobacco
« Reply #8 on: September 30, 2012, 01:39:53 am »
The stuff the Indians grow is different. One use of it is to make yourself invisible to spirits.
Cheers
Al

Offline Delmonico

  • Forager
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: natural tobacco
« Reply #9 on: October 05, 2012, 06:31:01 pm »
Started smoking around 15 - 16 with Bali Shag and pipe tobacco.  Used to smoke Stokkebyes and Bali everday.  Nothing I smoked had additives and I never got addicited.  Haven't smoked in months although I pickup a pack of American Spirits (additive free) every two or three months.  Everyone I know who started on tailor made additive 'enhanced' cigs like Newports, Marlboros, and Kools, they're still hooked.

Offline raw-al

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,961
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: natural tobacco
« Reply #10 on: October 05, 2012, 08:53:39 pm »
The stuff the Indians grow is different. One use of it is to make yourself invisible to spirits.
(When also combined with sweet grass)
Cheers
Al

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: natural tobacco
« Reply #11 on: October 06, 2012, 06:59:17 am »
how bad is natural tobacco for you really? nobody used to get lung cancer from smoking.
I noticed that too. Smoking was common among hunter-gatherer societies, yet not a single case of cancer was found among them until they started becoming modernized. That's not to say that smoking is healthy, but it does suggest that it was much less of a health hazard in the past for whatever reasons.

On 10/07/11 6:59 PM, Ray Audette wrote [at the Paleofood forum]:
> that claim [that humans didn't get cancer in hunter-gatherer days] was first made by Stanislaw Tanchou in 1843 in his regular lecture at The University of Paris Medical School.   He found that the most accurate way to predict epidemiological cancer rates was by examining per-capital grain consumption rates.  These proved to have a striking correlation in all areas where these data were gathered.  He thus predicted that no cancer would be found in people who didn't eat grain.  Until the prevalence of Acrylamides in human blood samples was discovered in 2001, scientists had no idea why [the] correlation was so.

> Many explorers and missionaries, inspired by Tanchou, began to search for cancer among hunter-gathers.  In the resulting 100 year search for cancer in such people, documented by Anthropologist Vilhjalmur Stefansson [Stefansson, Vilhjalmur, Cancer: Disease of Civilization. New York: Hill and Wang, 1960], none was ever found except among those ... eating missionary food.

One of the more revealing, but not that surprising, additives to cigarrettes is high fructose corn syrup.

In addition to no additives in their tobacco, traditional peoples smoked pipes instead of cigs. Even today, pipe-smoking has much lower rates of cancer than cig smoking. Mouth cancer is still a significant risk with modern pipe smoking, but lung cancer is much less common than with cig smoking, reportedly because the smoke is not inhaled deeply into the lungs, which is not a traditional practice. Filters on cigarettes encourage even deeper inhalation than standard cigs. Filtered cigs, one of the newest tobacco vehicles, is also one of the most carcinogenic.

Wow, what's the reason for adding 599 (!!) things to something small like a cigarette?
Same reason as everything else: $$$
>"When some one eats an Epi paleo Rx template and follows the rules of circadian biology they get plenty of starches when they are available three out of the four seasons." -Jack Kruse, MD
>"I recommend 20 percent of calories from carbs, depending on the size of the person" -Ron Rosedale, MD (in other words, NOT zero carbs) http://preview.tinyurl.com/6ogtan
>Finding a diet you can tolerate is not the same as fixing what's wrong. -Tim Steele
Beware of problems from chronic Very Low Carb

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk