Hey Jow Forums, what's your opinion on smoking?

Althought neither is a good thing... Definetly weed is the worst of them. Nasty long term effects, in the brain, and really shity short ones too. It can easily lead to depression, and other mental illneses. Tobaco is also shit, and fucking hard to quit.

Stopped smoking cigs like a month ago and switched to a juul pen. I smell alot better now.

You cant make it better, is always going to lead to cancer, your lungs are not made to inhale smoke.

yep, keep paying $20 a pack minimum to suck down that tobacco jew though

30 year old now, never been a smoker but a massive drinker since about 13-14, was into drugs pretty hard around 19-23 and got over it, get drug tested randomly with work. smoking just never appealed to me, it tastes and smells like shit and you get nothing from it.

Attached: 1523533820732.jpg (1024x768, 120K)

also smokes are over $50 a packet here at the moment, zog taxes them hard

>$20 a pack
maybe in jewyork

Tobacco increases your testosterone. Weed reduces your testosterone. People with low testosterone are passive and easy to control. So, the reason is pretty obvious.

Mfw under $5 pack
Cucks

Is opium manly because in my opinion its better then cigarettes. That today seem like candy for children to me. Started smoking cigarettes and cannabis when was a child. But cigarettes are for children and cannabush is for teens in my opinion and many others opinion as well. Cant get high from those shits anymore.

You're all faggots I'm a long haul trucker and smoke opium and shoot DMT.

I used to buy the anti-smoking 'science', and thought only an idiot would smoke! Why would someone inhale burning plant matter? It just seemed stupid. How ignorant was I! I never realized that maybe they smoked it because it had benefits, only deduced it was because they were "addicted". Never having tried it myself, that was that.
Then, to cut a long story short, a series of events unfolded that challenged this perception in graduate school.

I found out that ALL anti-tobacco science rested on (weak) epidemiological studies. The further I dug, the more I was amazed. I found the works of William Whitby, an actual medical doctor, that knew of this years ago and railed against the anti-tobacco science of his day.
I was STILL convinced that tobacco was bad for you though. However, what pushed me into the event horizon was seeing the experimental studies (hard science), to that very day (and this very day still!) that showed that scientists were incapable of inducing cancer with tobacco smoke!
Now, I was amazed and I did further research into the pharmalogical properties of the tobacco smoke, and realized it wasn't just "plant matter" after all, this plant matter contained hundreds of bioactive compounds that were beneficial, and even life-extending (note, 75% of all supercentarians were smokers).

true? enjoy your cheap smokes, dont worry about the health defects you are already a black cunt you cant sink any lower

Once you see the case for yourself, you will realize that the emperor of anti-smoking "science" has no clothes! It is an invented pseudoscience much like man-made climate change.

Anti-tobacco "science" began as a moral crusade where people were trying to demonize it through dishonesty under the guise of science. The first "hard" study, did involve dogs, however, it was proved to be patently falsified, as admitted under oath by researchers involved.
After the anti-tobacco crusaders realized the hard science was not on their side, they switched to soft epidemiological studies, that intentionally would provide a result they were looking for.

The government gains control, a pretense for further taxation.
Moreover, the enhanced cognition yielded by tobacco use is despised by those with power.
Scientists gain funding.
Smoke-haters gain a world filled with less smoking.

Eventually, even well meaning scientists bought the lie, simply because of the "overwhelming" amount of evidence, without realizing that this mountain of evidence was all baseless and not predicated on any hard science (there is so much of it, they took for granted that there had to be something behind it), eventually carrying on the flawed non-randomized epidemiological work of their dishonest predecessors.
Also, their funding is largely dependent on vehement anti-smoking organizations like the American Lung Association, which will cease funding them generous grants if they provide epidemiological evidence to the contrary (as was the case with the Japanese Paradox).

Now for the science.
Examine it for yourself.
Again, to this very date scientists have been UNABLE to induce cancer in rodents using tobacco! This is not cherry-picking, all experimental studies show the same result!

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.

To extended it even further, tobacco smoke has anti-carcinogenic properties and protects against cancer.

journals.lww.com/health-physics/Abstract/1982/01000/Carcinogenic_Effects_of_Radon_Daughters,_Uranium.4.aspx

The light tobacco 'smoking' dogs in this study lived longer than control when exposed to radon.
37% of the control group (NO SMOKE) dogs developed cancer.
Only 5% of the smoking dogs developed cancer!

Do you want to go even further down the rabbit hole? Most smokers who go on to get cancer, only got cancer after stopping!

>Are lung cancers triggered by stopping smoking?
medical-hypotheses.com/article/S0306-9877(06)00780-8/fulltext

This shouldn't even come as a surprise to those with a background in medicine after seeing the radon dog study because this makes sense! Tobacco suppresses various cancer growth (eg: IGF-1) factors and the body will upregulate them in response! You can liken this to taking the best medicine for stopping cancer for years on end and you suddenly quit

For the beginner, looking for arguments in layman's terms, I would wholeheartedly recommend the man that revealed the truth about tobacco to me, Dr. William Whitby.

William Whitby, M.D. shows that anti-tobacco "science" isn't science at all!

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

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

Another excellent resource:

Collection of studies showing the health benefits of smoking tobacco:
wispofsmoke.net/goodforyou.html

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).

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

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 (that is 20 cigarettes for $1). The benefits will easily exceed the cost.

Tobacco is the most potent cognition enhancer known to man and it helped fuel the technological and industrial development of Western Civilization.
In the past 500 years, all great scientists, musicians and persons of note were tobacco smokers.

>nicotine boosted IQ scores in a small sample of smokers, specifically scores on the RAPM12 (possibly related to its increasing global connectivity since IQ is being increasingly reified as measuring the global connectivity of multiple brain subsystems)
>reaction time is improved, as is inspection time and visual search (but perhaps due solely to faster motor reaction?)
>pilots’ performance enhanced 4/5 as much as donepezil does; improves late-day piloting
>overnight performance on various memory & attention13 tasks ("These data suggest that when performance is being measured overnight, smokers show little or no impairment, whilst the performance of non-smokers showed performance decrements.") faster performance on Stroop and word classification.
>acute nicotine administration may exert direct beneficial effects on novelty detection and subsequent memory recognition
>in smokers, improved prospective memory (things one intends to do); Rusted et al 2005

gwern.net/Nicotine

recent studies show that lung cancer is more genetic that habit like every single other cancer

What do you think of American spirits?

Dieing before retirement is the highest honor.

Its better to pay 5 bucks for cancer rather then 50 Ausfailian faggot. Plus the same properties guarenteed are the same as American.

Smoking Cigarettes is cringy as bluepilled.
Smoking weed is based and redpilled.

Oh cool. They make vapes for toddlers now. Bout time

I've smoked unfiltered Lucky Strikes since I was thriteen or so. I'm thirty two now, and I can still run a six minute mile. Granted, I only smoke six to eight cigarettes a day, more when I drink. Doctor isn't happy I smoke, but when she does my yearly checkup she can't find anything wrong with me.

t. Anecdotal experience

>flag checks out

yeah, no. what you will observe is that tons of people with neurodegenerative disorders self-medicate with nicotine.

PSYCH PATIENTS LOVE CIGARETTES!!!

Pretty based, but growing your own tobacco would be even better.

Attached: WIN_20190509_07_37_26_Pro.jpg (1280x720, 108K)

FUark, had cropped a pic but posted the original.

>Everything said here is an artistic work of fiction