492 replies to this topic

[nightlight]

VidX, on Feb 25 2010, 09:42 AM, said:

I've seen vigorous people of an old age, I'm sure you too, but this...

He smoked since age 7 (see also for other supercentenarians). He even smoked during London marathon which he completed at age 101.


Another curiosity -- an interview with Thomas Bruso (better known as MALWARE SITE DISABLED//encyclopediadramatica.com/Epic_Beard_Man"]"Epic Beard Man") the latest YouTube sensation -- the 67 year old Vietnam vet attacked on the bus by a ghetto thug teaches the bully a lesson (a version with translation). No surprise to see him smoke during the interview.


The longest living human on record, Madamme Jeanne Calment lived 122 years 164 days, smoked since her teens.


The longest living man, Shigechiyo Izumi who lived 120 years and 237 days, was smoker as well. Higher powers have a good sense of humor -- the only two humans who had to blow out 120 candles on their birthday cake were both smokers.

Before someone declares these 'lucky accidents' or exceptions, in animal experiements, the smoking animals live longer (about 20%)  than non-smoking animals, remaining thinner and sharper throughout.



Edit: Disabled link to malware site.  Nice goin', nightlight.

Edited by niner, 28 February 2010 - 04:57 AM.

[Luna]

huh! howcome smokers survive? is there a health benefit for it or just the mental benefits?!

And that japanese guy is said to only been 105.

[Matt]

what a joke.

Shut up about smoking please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All of my great grandparents, and all but one of my grandparents have died from lung cancer from smoking.

SMOKING KILLS PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited by Matt, 25 February 2010 - 04:29 PM.

[VidX]

Mayeb we should add a pack of ciggs/day to our longevity regimen lol  *goes to buy a pint of beer*

Edited by VidX, 25 February 2010 - 04:32 PM.

[Luna]

but maybe if you are lucky not to get cancer, the addiction mentality keeps you going? O_o still, shouldn't there be tons of other health damages? Would there be any benefits? O_o

[nightlight]

Luna, on Feb 25 2010, 11:27 AM, said:

And that japanese guy is said to only been 105.

Nop, he lived over 120, see the wiki page linked.

Quote

huh! howcome smokers survive? is there a health benefit for it or just the mental benefits?!

Tobacco is a potent medicinal plant and youth elixir used for over 8000 years. Antismoking "science" is a money making scam, resting entirely on the worst kind of junk science, created and financed chiefly by the pharmaceutical industry. The big pharma reflexively seeks to suppress other natural medicines and folk remedies as well, especially those that work. Tobacco being the most beneifical natural medicine humans have ever known (tell me which other substance, matural or synthetic, extends the lifespan by 20% in animal experiments, while keeping the brain sharp into the old age, doubles our main internal detox and antioxidant enzymes glutathione, catalase and SOD,...), is the main target of the pharma's attacks on natural medicines.

Edited by nightlight, 25 February 2010 - 06:23 PM.

[VidX]

Ok, this is getting ridiculous :D

[Luna]

nightlight, on Feb 25 2010, 06:46 PM, said:

Luna, on Feb 25 2010, 11:27 AM, said:

And that japanese guy is said to only been 105.

Nop, ha lived over 120, see the wiki page linked.

I did!

Quote

Izumi was the longest holder of the "oldest living person" title. He is also one of only two people (the other being Jeanne Calment) verified to have lived past a 120th birthday, although subsequent research has cast doubt on the verification. In April 1987, 14 months after Izumi's death, the Department of Epidemiology at the Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology reported that research into Izumi's family registration records indicated Izumi died at the age of 105.[3][4] The oldest undisputed male is Christian Mortensen (1882-1998), who died at the age of 115 years and 252 days.

That comes from the wiki page! apparently was maybe 105.

[nightlight]

Luna, on Feb 25 2010, 01:20 PM, said:

That comes from the wiki page! apparently was maybe 105.

That 105 claim was a recently added paragraph backed by an alleged statement (no primary source for the 105 claim is accessible on the web, only word of mouth), heavily disputed and added/removed several times (contradicting among others the Guinness book, which presumably checks the claims more throughly than some random web page they used as backing on the wiki for that paragraph). The primary claim on the page is 120 years and 237 days. As expected, the second oldest man Christian Mortensen was smoker as well (see also an article "World's Oldest -- All Smokers" and more here).



In any case, the animal experiments, especially those sponsored by organizations or agencies seeking to scientifically show harm from smoking, such as National Cancer Institute, demonstrate the main point quite unambiguously -- smoking is good for you (interestingly, some imminst members have started smoking after reading some of my posts here, having checked the citations, of course). While the life extending power of tobacco smoke is easy to demonstrate in animal experiments, showing that smoking causes lung cancer in animal experiments (a matter of routine for any other carcinogen, but not for tobacco) has turned into a six decades old futile pursuit -- the ancient 'gift of gods' just won't do it. The handful of randomized intervention human trials have similarly backfired (i.e. the test group, smokers urged & helped quit, ended up with more lung cancers than the control group, smokers left alone to smoke as they please; see also here).

Edited by nightlight, 25 February 2010 - 07:37 PM.

[Chaos Theory]

Matt, on Feb 25 2010, 11:28 AM, said:

what a joke.

Shut up about smoking please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There's no need to adamantly oppose any idea that smoking may have some health benefits.

Nicotine itself has been shown to prevent alzhiemers and some age related decline in brain function.

Quote

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC1670208/

Alzheimer's disease decreased with increasing daily number of cigarettes smoked before onset of disease.
In six families in which the disease was apparently inherited as an autosomal dominant disorder, the mean age of onset was 4.17 years later in smoking patients than in non-smoking patients from the same family.
We speculate that nicotine may have a role in the aetiology of both Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease.

Tobacco also has a significant MAO-B inhibiting effect.  The effect on longivity could have a MOA similar to that of selegiline.  I think it calls for further study rather than adamant opposition because of the stigma attached to smoking.

[mustardseed41]

Wow......you guys have it all figured out. Smoking is good for health and longevity. Brilliant. Think I'll go buy me some cowboy killers.

[VidX]

Brb, time for my longevity fag guys



Now I need some study which shows the benefits of recreational drugs. ASAP

Edited by VidX, 26 February 2010 - 02:14 AM.

[nightlight]

mustardseed41, on Feb 25 2010, 08:53 PM, said:

Wow......you guys have it all figured out. Smoking is good for health and longevity. Brilliant. Think I'll go buy me some cowboy killers.

Although you're likely kidding, for other readers here who might consider experimenting with smoking I would caution that the mass market cigarettes are mostly made from reconstituted tobacco scraps, stems and wood pulp, plus artificial coloring, flavoring and nicotine. That look-alike product is quite different from the magical medicine, the real tobacco leaf honed over millenia by couple billions of life-long 'test subjects'. Further, in the last few years nearly all states in USA have mandated so-called Fire Safe Cigarettes (FSC). The net result is a noxious cigarette-like product laden with toxic fire retardants, that even most long time smokers can't tolerate (coughs, headaches,...).

So, don't even bother with any mass market "cigarettes" -- they will make you sick and will kill you over time. The only way remaining in USA (a country that ows its existence to tobacco and that used to be 'the land of the free' as long as we were grateful for the gift) to enjoy the benefits of the classical tobacco smoke, other than pipes or cigars, is to buy an additive free rolling tobacco and 'roll/stuff/make your own'. There are plenty of real tobacco choices and ever improving little stuffing machines that make this job so easy and quick that millions of smokers have switched from premade FSC junk to the real thing (e.g. check here and their forum,  RYO Magazine, or search for RYO,SYO or MYO).

Edited by nightlight, 26 February 2010 - 03:07 AM.

[TTom]

Tobacco is a plant and just like many plants it "might" have health promoting phytochemicals as well as the known toxic ones. However, this doesn't mean we should all start smoking.

The long-term effects of smoking kills. Period. Of course we know generally speaking smoking one cigarette may not kill a person instantly but the long term, real world proof is out there and medical journals constantly write about it's deadly consequences.

Just in case you need a study to prove smoking kills, here is one: The British Medical Journal published a 50 year study starting in 1951 which concluded in 2001, titled: "Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years' observations on male British doctors." It found that men participants who smoked only cigarettes and continued smoking died on average about 10 years younger than lifelong non-smokers. YES, DIED! Cessation at age 60, 50, 40, or 30 years gained, respectively, about 3, 6, 9, or 10 years of life expectancy. Prolonged cigarette smoking from early adult life tripled age specific mortality rates. Those who stopped smoking early enough, in their 30's were able to avoid most (not all) of cigarettes effects. In the end, the results of this 50 year study clearly stated: "The excess mortality associated with smoking chiefly involved vascular, neoplastic, and respiratory diseases that can be caused by smoking." If you look up mortality it means death. Simply put - smoking kills!

Okay so let's put aside the proven medical studies for a moment and let's just use our common sense here. God, nature, evolution or whatever you choose to believe in provided us with lungs to sustain life.  The lungs were made for taking in oxygen not smoke of any kind regardless if it is tobacco or lettuce leaf smoke.

The lungs consist of about 3000 delicate, small sacs called allveoli. Now, during normal breathing about 500 milliliters of oxygen enters the lungs. We need this pure, clean oxygen.  Oxygen poor red blood cells pass though small capillary at the surface of the aveolar sacs where oxygen from these sacs diffuse into the plasma then into red blood cells to be transported to cells.  Proper oxygen is critical to healthy cells. Healthy cells are critical to extending life.

Imagine sending 4,000+ chemicals contained in cigarette smoke to healthy cells, tissues and organs. Toxic chemicals such as: carbon monoxide, lead, formaldehyde, cresol, benzene, acetone, styrene, hydroquinone, among others. Now just imagine what it is like to people who breath in the unfiltered, second-hand smoke.

Speaking of toxic chemicals in cigarette smoke, we condemn old houses because they contain "lead" paint. We make sure not to start our cars in closed garages or suffocate and die from "carbon monoxide" poisoning. We have funerals for children who sniffed "acetone" laden solvents. Yet the same, so-called "intelligent authorities" -- parents, politicians, judges, lawyers, doctors, nurses that condone such things can be seen hacking and gasping for another breath of precious oxygen while fumbling to get another fix from the same chemicals laden in their cigarette. Puff after deleterious puff they screech: "show me a study!", "show me a study!". The lack of intelligence (or for that matter, just plain common sense) and the hypocrisy of some people is plain crazy.

Just as a side note, in addition to the deadly effects proven on human health, cigarette smoking is an environmental hazard and pollutant. The same intelligence that fuels smokers to continue sending their bodies to an early grave is the same intelligence that has made cigarette smoking one of the leading causes of house fires. In addition, cigarette butts are considered to be the most littered item in the entire world and can be found almost anywhere humans have roamed including our forests because the filters are not biodegradable.

[Luna]

Just to point out, those guys seem to be smoking what you said to be the junk cigs, so it kinda of goes against all what you said.

Also about the guy being 120 or 105, evidence seem to point at 105 but we can't really know.

[TheFountain]

nightlight, on Feb 25 2010, 01:46 PM, said:

Luna, on Feb 25 2010, 11:27 AM, said:

And that japanese guy is said to only been 105.

Nop, he lived over 120, see the wiki page linked.

Quote

huh! howcome smokers survive? is there a health benefit for it or just the mental benefits?!

Tobacco is a potent medicinal plant and youth elixir used for over 8000 years. Antismoking "science" is a money making scam, resting entirely on the worst kind of junk science, created and financed chiefly by the pharmaceutical industry. The big pharma reflexively seeks to suppress other natural medicines and folk remedies as well, especially those that work. Tobacco being the most beneifical natural medicine humans have ever known (tell me which other substance, matural or synthetic, extends the lifespan by 20% in animal experiments, while keeping the brain sharp into the old age, doubles our main internal detox and antioxidant enzymes glutathione, catalase and SOD,...), is the main target of the pharma's attacks on natural medicines.

I have no sense of humour when it comes to the disgusting, detrimental health effects of cigarettes. I hope it soon becomes a criminal offense to subject other people to second hand smoke.

Edited by TheFountain, 26 February 2010 - 07:44 AM.

[nightlight]

TTom, on Feb 26 2010, 02:11 AM, said:

The long-term effects of smoking kills. Period.

Show some hard science (such as experiments or randomized trials) that demonstrate this claim. The only thing you have demonstrated is that you have swallowed and internalized the full load from antismoking con men.

Quote

Just in case you need a study to prove smoking kills, here is one: The British Medical Journal published a 50 year study starting in 1951 which concluded in 2001, titled: "Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years' observations on male British doctors." It found that men participants who smoked only cigarettes and continued smoking died on average about 10 years younger than lifelong non-smokers. YES, DIED! Cessation at age 60, 50, 40, or 30 years gained, respectively, about 3, 6, 9, or 10 years of life expectancy. Prolonged cigarette smoking from early adult life tripled age specific mortality rates. Those who stopped smoking early enough, in their 30's were able to avoid most (not all) of cigarettes effects. In the end, the results of this 50 year study clearly stated: "The excess mortality associated with smoking chiefly involved vascular, neoplastic, and respiratory diseases that can be caused by smoking." If you look up mortality it means death. Simply put - smoking kills!

Attributing causal role to correlations on non-randomized samples (such as Doll & Hill study of UK doctors) is the surest sign of junk science. By that "logic" you could as well "conclude" that using prescription medications will kill you, since in any age group those who use them have shorter life expectancy than those who don't use them. Further, similarly to tobacco in Doll's UK doctors "study" you mention, those who "quit" using the prescription meds will have longer life-span than those who don't quit, and among the 'quitters' those who quit earlier will do better than those who quit later,...  Hence, we can surely "conclude" that prescription meds kill. You can rewrite your entire paragraph substituting 'smoking' with 'using prescription meds' and it will hold equally at statistical level, yet the conclusion "hence, X kills" will be equally false.

Why is such leap of "logic" invalid? Because the reason someone is user, non-user or  former user, of prescription meds is not a status randomly assigned to the subjects by a researcher (in which case any association with the outcomes can be attributted, with appropriate statistical caveats dependent on sample size, to the factor being randomly assigned), but rather that status is caused by something else which by itself may be causing shorter life span and thus leading to the positive correlation between the use of meds and shorter life-spans.

The mere statistical associations between an adverse health outcome D and some factor X observed on non-randomized (self-selected) subjects, be it {smokers, ex-smokers, never-smokers}  or {med users, ex-users, never-users }, can equally mean protective/therapeutic role of X or causal role of X regarding outcome D. Such non-randomized association merely means that both X and D are within the same, often complex and largely unknown, web of causes and effects, but it doesn't tell you what is the nature (e.g. causal, protective) of the chain of links between X and D. In contrast to common junk science scams, in the real science, observation of such non-randomized correlation between X and D is at best a hint of causality that requires hard science (experiments, randomized trials) followup to disentangle the web of causes and effects to which X and D belong. The antismoking "science" has been stuck in this "hint phase" for over six decades (it was originally created by Nazi "health science" in 1930s, Hitler being fanatical antismoker and the original 'health nazi', where Doll studied at the time, and after the war he revived it in 1950, without mentioning its nazi roots).

This peculiar hint-hint nature of antismoking "science" was already noticed in 1958 by none other than the father of modern scientific statistics, famous British mathematician R. A. Fisher, who called their bluff (pdf):

But the time has passed, and although further investigation, in a sense, has taken place, it has consisted largely of the repetition of observations of the same kind as those which Hill and his colleagues called attention several years ago. I read a recent article to the effect that nineteen different investigations in different parts of the world had all concurred in confirming Dr. Hill's findings. I think they had concurred, but I think they were mere repetitions of evidence of the same kind...

Yet, here we are, not 8 years when Fisher pointed out this oddity, but six decades later, and the anstismoking "science" is still circling in that same hint-loop that Fisher objected to. For fairness sake, not that they haven't tried hard science. Unfortunately for their cause, it always backfired -- the smoking test animals lived longer than non-smoking ones and in the few randomized human trials that were done, the 'quit smoking group' ended up with more lung cancers or heart attacks than 'smoking group' controls. So, what can they do but stick with what "works" -- pointing finger at the correlations on non-randomized samples with a wink-wink to their 'journalist' and 'educator' stooges to spread the hysteria, along with vicious hatred, social and economic abuse of smokers (the largely poor folks just trying to self-medicate with this traditional medicinal plant).

Quote

The lungs consist of about 3000 delicate, small sacs called allveoli.

BTW, each human lung has ~300 million alveoli.

Quote

Okay so let's put aside the proven medical studies for a moment and let's just use our common sense here. God, nature, evolution or whatever you choose to believe in provided us with lungs to sustain life.  The lungs were made for taking in oxygen not smoke of any kind regardless if it is tobacco or lettuce leaf smoke.

No one has a bluperint for what Nature or God, or whoever, had in mind for our lungs, our brains, our hands,.... Otherwise you wouldn't be typing this, since surely, your fingers "were not made" for typing on the keyboards, but merely for holding onto branches, picking flees from your buddies backs, grubs to eat,... In nature, anything that works, goes. In biochemistry of live organisms every enzyme, protein or general molecule, has myriad of uses, depending on location and context.  Absorbtion of substances via skin or lungs (even eyes, ears, nose,...) has long been used in medicine (have you heard of medicinal creams, patches, inhalers, aromatherapy, medicinal smoke,...). As to the toxic smoke scare stories that you've been kind enough to retell, go back in time to the lightening scorched primordial soup few billions years ago. You will find all those scary, all 'burned' organic molecules, dancing to some cosmic tune, weaving the first life on Earth. If live cells have learned how to do anything at all by now, it is how to process safely the oxidized organic molecules. These are the kinds of organic molecules that gave rise to life and that still make the life go (oxidation/reduction cycle).

Keep also in mind that about 100mg (less than third of an aspirin tablet) of tobacco smoke matter absorbed per pack of cigarettes via 75 m^2 lung surface, is dwarfed by tens of thousands larger quantity of matter absorbed daly via digestive system, from foods and beverages. Since virtually every organic molecule you ingest has to undergo biochemical breakdown, before it is used as a building block or for energy (via oxidative processes), the potentially damaging oxidative processes, along with all their 'scary' free radicals byproducts, go on continuously in each of your cells 24/7. The quantities of matter involved in this vast biochemical factory making up your body are many orders of magnitude greater than the 100mg of matter/pack abosorbed from oxidized plant's leaf cells (smoking). There is more oxidation and its byproducts from one peanut or one blueberry, by the time it is fully processed and used up inside your cells, than a smoker ingests from pack of cigarettes (where much of oxidation takes place safely away from your cells).

Further, unlike most foods you ingest in thousands times greater quantities than tobacco smoke matter, some unknown components of tobacco smoke upregulate all the main internal antioxidant and detox enzymes -- nearly doubling glutathione, catalase and SOD, which vastly offsets any oxidative stress from the 100mg of tobacco matter ingested. Consequently, among others, smoking doubles smoker's detox rates for virtually any toxic materials (heavy metals, exhaust fumes,...) they are exposed to. Hence people exposed to such toxic materials at work or in their living environment, or those genetically sensitive to them, will instinctively use smoking as self-medication (to protect & help detox from the noxious exposures), resulting in the observed statistical associations of smoking with 'smoking related diseases'. That is no different than association between using sunglasses and sunburns -- those who use sunglasses more, will have more sunburns (and also, the ex-users will have less sunburns than the current users), even though sunglasses are protective against the sun's radiation, and they certainly don't cause sunburns.

[Luna]

There was an article here a while ago showing twins. One smoking, one not smoking. The smoker looked like 10 years older.

[Forever21]

My great grandmother smoked like a chimney. She lived for 104 years.

[Luna]

http://www.nydailyne...an_dramati.html

[nightlight]

Luna, on Feb 26 2010, 10:48 AM, said:

There was an article here a while ago showing twins. One smoking, one not smoking. The smoker looked like 10 years older.
http://www.nydailyne...an_dramati.html

First the "smoker" sister's skin looks like a typical result of sun damage. Second, she wasn't a smoker at all (for 20+ years already, and she smoked 16 years only at younger age). In contrast, here are some young looking older chain smokers:


46 year old and 75 year old (and at 81) chain smokers since their early teens

In Japan and Korea, 60-70 percent of men smoke, yet they tend to look more youthful than Europeans or Americans with less than half of those smoking rates (Japanese men also have three times lower lung cancer rates and live longer than American men). Back in 1940s and 1950s, actors and other celebrities were largely smokers, they didn't have botox or face lifts, yet they didn't look particularly wrinkled, certainly not more than nonsmokers of that era (some smoking celebrity photos; wikpedia had a large list of smoking who-is-who in Hollywood, which was deleted recently, someone obviously has felt threatened by the unsuitable facts and decided to erase history and improve on truth, Orwell's 1984 or Stalin style; that's is quite typical for vicious antismoking hysterics, even FDR's cigarette was erased from old photos). Many models smoke today, to control weight and their skin looks fine, too.

Some of the underlyng biochemical reasons why smoker's skin (and every other marker of youthfulness) would come out younger in any apples to apples comparisons (not just the same genetics, but sun & other exposures, diet, stress, socioeconomic status,...):

a) Nicotine stimulates and upregulates growth and branching of blood vessels (via upregulation of vascular growth factor), especially of capillaries, which improves the nutrient delivery and cleanup (antioxidant & detox enzyme supplies) to all tissues, including brain and skin (provided person's intake of nutrients and supplements is adequate).

b) Tobacco smoke (not nicotine) upregulates production of glutathione, catalase and SOD (our body's chief internal antioxidant and detox enzymes, sometimes used in cosmetics for skin rejuvenation), to nearly double levels.

c) Carbon monoxide in low concentration (as delivered in tobacco smoke) acts as a signaling mechanism in human biochemical networks to increase blood circulation, oxygenation and reduce inflammation.

d) Nitric oxide in low concentrations (as provided by tobacco smoke) acts as neurotransmitter, signaling to cardiovascular system to increase blood supplies to peripheral tissues (this is the biochemical mechanism behind the Viagra effect).

e) Tobacco smoke upregulates levels of "youth hormones" DHEA and testosterone and reduces their decline with age.

f) The highest quality brands (Japanese) of the miracle skin supplement and rejuvenator, Conezyme Q10 are produced from tobacco leaf, which is still the best source of natural Co-Q10 (since it includes the full synergistic complex which the cheaper synthetic production methods cannot replicate).

g) Deprenyl (selegiline), which mimics the selective MAO B inhibitory properties of tobacco smoke (this is not related to nicotine) and is used in smoking cessation "therapies" for that reason, has become quite popular in life-extension circles, due to its almost magical rejuvenating powers.

h) Nicotinic acid (byproduct of oxidized nicotine, as in burning tobacco, delivered directly into arterial bloodstream), along with its salts and various organic compounds, are skin-protective agents, used in cosmetic and pharmaceutical industry.

Edited by nightlight, 26 February 2010 - 07:06 PM.

[TheFountain]

Forever21, on Feb 26 2010, 11:48 AM, said:

My great grandmother smoked like a chimney. She lived for 104 years.

And plenty of people know grandparents who smoked and died in their 50s and 60s of lung cancer. Your point being....?

[VidX]

TheFountain, on Feb 26 2010, 02:32 PM, said:

Forever21, on Feb 26 2010, 11:48 AM, said:

My great grandmother smoked like a chimney. She lived for 104 years.

And plenty of people know grandparents who smoked and died in their 50s and 60s of lung cancer. Your point being....?

Point is probably that the genes of these supercentarians let them smoke and still escape the possible bad consequences...

As we saw already - dude smokes, drinks, eats whatever the hell he wants and is healthier at 102 then most people almost half is age (and has a mind blowing speed in boxing lol).

Edited by VidX, 26 February 2010 - 10:24 PM.

[mustardseed41]

Nightlight your a genius man. I'm so impressed.

[numbered]

people who think outside the box usually don't fit in the box .
Nightlight i take it you are a smoker right?
its like a christian defending god.
you write as a smart person.And an addict. That ain't so bad. We all are in different ways.
Hope you don't get pure-clean-air induced lung cancer.
You 'll then have to spend a fortune on smokes to up regulate SOD and catalase to help your immune system.

[mustardseed41]

Attention everyone!!!!!!!

Throw away you Retin-A and head to the local mini mart and grab a pack of smokes. Your skin will look MUCH better....lol

[Forever21]

VidX, on Feb 26 2010, 05:14 PM, said:

TheFountain, on Feb 26 2010, 02:32 PM, said:

Forever21, on Feb 26 2010, 11:48 AM, said:

My great grandmother smoked like a chimney. She lived for 104 years.

And plenty of people know grandparents who smoked and died in their 50s and 60s of lung cancer. Your point being....?

Point is probably that the genes of these supercentarians let them smoke and still escape the possible bad consequences...

As we saw already - dude smokes, drinks, eats whatever the hell he wants and is healthier at 102 then most people almost half is age (and has a mind blowing speed in boxing lol).

and perhaps vegetarianism trumps non-smoking. meat eating of course is carcinogenic too.

[TTom]

Well, I'm not even going to bother with a quote-reply as there is so much idiotic, pseudo blabber to the pro-smoking post it is laughable. It seems every so often on health forums, someone rises from the muck and mire of stupidity and delusional reality to spend countless hours and energy trying to convince the level-headed folks that smoking is somehow a logical, safe, sane practice.  Every aspect of smoking is anti-health.  You know it, I know it, and science knows it.  Entertaining such foolishness by replying to the pro-smoker just feeds their need for attention. He/She is probably a cloaked, addicted smoker who can't quit and therefore needs a forum to justify their deleterious actions.  Plain and simple - Save your money and save your life - Don't ever smoke.

[JLL]

That's not really a strong case.

[JLL]

Btw, I think the pro-smoking argument basically says that "natural tobacco = good", "commercial cigarettes = bad", i.e. that it's all the extra stuff in cigarettes that is bad, not tobacco leaf.

EDIT: Or maybe I'm getting ahead of myself here... some pro-smoking people seem to think even a pack of Marlboro is good for you, others say you have to smoke the real stuff to see benefits.

Edited by JLL, 27 February 2010 - 11:23 AM.