• We welcome content that is not political, divisive, or offensive. If we feel your content leans this way or has the potential to, it may be removed at any time. A hot pepper forum is not the place for such content. Thank you for respecting the community!

Boy do I want a cigarette

I smoked for over 20 years and quit last Feb 7th (1 year and 1 day ago) I used Chantix!! Worked great (as long as you can over look the VIVID Dreams and thoughts) But it worked great for me... haven't smoked one since
 
Dyce51 said:
I smoked for over 20 years and quit last Feb 7th (1 year and 1 day ago) I used Chantix!! Worked great (as long as you can over look the VIVID Dreams and thoughts) But it worked great for me... haven't smoked one since


Congratulations! That's such a hard thing to do. Go you!
 
I watched my mom die from it, six months from diagnosis to grave and I used to say "hey you gotta die of something" but let me tell you its a terrible way to go. Dont ever light another!
 
I quit once for a month..but it wsa involuntary... ;)

I went from prolly 1-2 packs of whatever a day to the ocassional pack.

Of course, I save money and lungs by RYO's. Better quality and portion control too. I can take aprt a rdy-made adn make two of my cigs outa it.

No, it isn't "better", but hell, Natives smoked for thousand of yrs, adn they didnt' get all the cancers until we got here...Hmmm.

After being used the RYO's...yes, i do use tubes sometimes..one regular cig taskes like bleck and is more apt to make me gak..commercial smokes are evil.

x_sasmok.gif
 
QuadShotz said:
No, it isn't "better", but hell, Natives smoked for thousand of yrs, adn they didnt' get all the cancers until we got here...Hmmm.
Well, first off they didn't smoke as much as we do and also I read a really good study a few years back showing the main link to cancer is the sugar water most companies spray on the leaves to make them dry faster.
 
imaguitargod said:
Well, first off they didn't smoke as much as we do and also I read a really good study a few years back showing the main link to cancer is the sugar water most companies spray on the leaves to make them dry faster.


so you're telling me its not all those other chemicals they put in'em ?

I may be wrong to say this but I dont see how sugar & water can cause the cancers.
also the indians were also smoking weed besides the natural tobacco
 
QuadShotz said:
No, it isn't "better", but hell, Natives smoked for thousand of yrs, adn they didnt' get all the cancers until we got here...Hmmm.


Well, that's not really accurate.

1. We only know about illness and diseases that leave identifiable marks on bones, because that's all we have to examine. Anyone who died of a cancer that did not metastasize to bone would be indistinguishable from someone was stabbed in the belly or died of acute pneumonia.

2. Early Native Americans did not live as long as we do now, and lung cancer from tobacco smoking isn't usually seen until later in life.
 
Yeah, good points Pam.

I guess *if* ya gona smoke, I feel RYO is just a bettr and "more natural" way to go about it since you can decide what goes in.

I know I can tell the difference.
 
chilehunter said:
so you're telling me its not all those other chemicals they put in'em ?

I may be wrong to say this but I dont see how sugar & water can cause the cancers.
also the indians were also smoking weed besides the natural tobacco

Nonono, don't get me wrong, those other chemicals cause cancer too, but I'm saying according to the study the sugar water drying method was id as one of the main causes of cancer.

From what I recall of the article, they had something like 10 or 20 rats that were periodically exposed to sugar water cured tobacco smoke on a regular basis and 10-20 rats that weren't. Some thing like 80% of the sugar water cured tobacco group developed cancer and only 20% of the non sugar water group developed cancer.

Once again, I would like to remind you that I do not recall all the details of the experiment as it was a few years ago.
 
well the moral of the story is dont light up a cig, we all know they're bad!
you being you (IGG) I dont see why you just dont smoke a joint when you get a craving for a cig.
 
chilehunter said:
you being you (IGG) I dont see why you just dont smoke a joint when you get a craving for a cig.

Various circmstances. I'll be at work, or I'll be with the folks, or I'll just not feel like getting high (which is rare in that case).
 
Here's an interesting article, a little better balanced then the average alarmist science article

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/02/09/health.pot.cancer/index.html

Health

Do men who frequently smoke pot have a higher risk of testicular cancer than those who do not? It's possible, according to a new study. However, the researchers say the link is currently a "hypothesis" that needs further testing.

Testicular cancer is relatively rare -- a man's lifetime chance of developing the disease is about 1 in 300 (and dying of it is about 1 in 5,000). Frequent or long-term marijuana smokers could have about double the risk of nonusers, according to the report in the February 9 issue of the journal Cancer.

In the study, a team led by Dr. Janet R. Daling of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington, interviewed 369 men between the ages of 18 and 44 from the Seattle-Puget Sound area whose testicular cancer had been diagnosed. They compared those men with 979 men who lived in the same area, but did not have cancer.

Overall, 26 percent of the testicular cancer patients were pot smokers (15 percent who used daily or weekly) at the time of diagnosis, compared with 20 percent of men without cancer (10 percent who used daily or weekly)

Marijuana users had 2.3 times the risk of a type of testicular cancer known as a nonseminoma as those who were not. Testicular cancer is divided into two types, pure seminomas (60 percent of cases) and nonseminomas (40 percent of cases.) The link was much weaker in men with seminomas.

These types of studies have one important caveat -- cancer patients may be more likely to remember - or may be more honest about - past drug use than men in the general population.

Because marijuana use was more closely associated with one type of tumor, rather than testicular cancer in general, it reduces the chances that the study participants were less than honest, Daling said. "That certainly makes us feel better that the associations are true associations," she said.

Still, the results are considered preliminary and need to be confirmed with more research. "There have been studies done on testicular cancer, but ours is the first to look at marijuana," said Daling. Health.com: Dogs sniff out clues in the fight against cancer

Scientists believe that most cases of testicular cancer actually get their start in early fetal life. Having an undescended testicle - a relatively common birth defect - a key risk factor for the disease.

There has been an increase in testicular cancers in the last half of the 20th century, however, which spurred the team to examine other factors that might explain the rise. Marijuana use increased over the same period, and chronic use has been shown to affect sperm formation and fertility, they note. Health.com: Boost your mood naturally

Some experts say the association is a tenuous one, particularly because seminomas have increased 64 percent from 1973 to 1998, while nonseminoma rates rose only 24 percent.

"These researchers have an association that they've picked up on, but it's a weak association," said Steve Shoptaw, a professor in the department of family medicine and psychiatry at UCLA. "Marijuana tends to be one of those firebrand issues were people can make statements to get airtime, so I'd like to see these findings replicated."

The authors note that nonseminoma rates did go up in a couple of places in the world in recent decades. One is Norway and the other is the Netherlands, a country where cannabis use is tolerated. The next step, said Daling, is to collect tumor tissue, evaluate it for marijuana receptors, and study how those relate to tumor development. Visit CNNhealth.com: Your connection for better living

"Certainly we're going to continue forward with this," she added.

Without stronger proof, critics say the study should be taken with a grain of salt. "There's always been the thought that cannabinoids had some interaction with the reproductive systems, so maybe they're onto something. Who knows?" said Shoptaw. "But now we need to isolate the actual physiological responses."

For patients using cannabis for medicinal purposes, the improvement in quality of life may outweigh any potential risk of testicular cancer, said Shoptaw.

"The bottom line is that I would not start warning my marijuana smokers that they are going to get testicular cancer," he said. "I don't think there's enough here to go forward with that message, at least not yet."
 
Back
Top