Health Problems from smoking?

SWEET! I'm packing up a few bowls now :wink:

Thanks for the information Kevin - I'd like those made into a couple of badges!

Don't see that on too many billboards. Einstein, Tolkien, Bertrand Russel: pipe smoking didn't seem to hurt them too much either.

It is not the tobacco that kills you it is the 600 plus additives they add to it . That works for food additives too .

Most pipe tobacco additives are natural . And the last time I checked they were not making brown paper sacks to make pipe tobacco out of . A long time ago I posted the list of 500 additives that Aladis uses in thier blends .Some of them not so nice . One has to keep in mind that before buying a cigar, is it hand rolled or made by a machine the same applies to pipe tobacco . You the consumer can make your own choices . See you in the nursing home .

Are those reports Kevin posted from the 60's?

http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/NNBBMQ.pdf

http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/scoth/technicaladvisorygroup/additiveslist.pdf

There are, of course, risks to pipe smoking, but not nearly as much as cigarettes. But it's my choice. Obesity is a much bigger concern in this country than tobacco. In fact, the two are probably correlated. Fewer thin smokers = more fat people!

It is not the tobacco that kills you it is the 600 plus additives they add to it . That works for food additives too .

Click to expand...

Thank you!
Anyone who wants to damn cigarettes while eating at McDonald's with any sort of frequency is, in my mind, a hypocrite.

If I may offer some small clarification:
There are 599 officially listed additives in *cigarettes*, as released by Big Tobacco in 1994 as part of the ongoing settlement. Per Wikipedia, "It applies, as documented, only to American manufactured cigarettes intended for distribution within the United States by the listed companies." Recent federal legislation has granted far-reaching oversight (in the US) to the FDA.
One thing to understand is that this list of additives was the product of decades of intense, private research by Big Tobacco (the 5 major US companies) to make their product sell--and keep selling. They are all approved (in varying amounts of course--cf. arsenic, for example) as food additives already; but why so many? Because there is an exacting science that goes into your cigarette that reaches far beyond taste and aroma--how long it burns, how evenly it burns, evenness of color, consistency of packing, shelf stability, ease of processing, et cetera, ad nauseum. For example, the largest industrial consumer of chocolate is the tobacco industry--far surpassing the candy and soft drink industries.
Perhaps most importantly, at least from the companies' perspective, is how addictive they could make cigarettes. If independent studies are to be believed, seven times more addictive than heroin--and that's chemically, not taking into account the effects of advertising and social acceptance.
Now, let's look at pipe tobacco. Although 599 additives are approved and accounted for, it's my understanding that the majority of those additives are not used for tobacco destined for the pipes; that the main additives are alcohol, citric acid, sugars and "candy" flavors, e.g. chocolate, cherry, etc. I'd love to get input from the blenders that participate in the forums (calling Messers Ouellette, Pease and Tarler!) as to the journey the leaf takes from plant to package. Perhaps Kevin, with his Tobacconist University Certification, can shed some light on the processing end regarding pipe and cigar manufacture.
I'm very comfortable combusting and imbibing a bit of alcohol and sugar along with my tobacco; it's been exactly (today, in fact) one year since I stopped smoking cigarettes, and the acrid, chemically smell of them no longer holds any appeal to me whatsoever. I've moved on to a better, more flavorful product, that I would like to think is marginally better for me. I hold no illusions, however, and realize that excessive use of anything is not good for the body, and burning vegetable matter is on the long list of verbotens for soft tissue, but I'll take my chances here. And enjoy them.
And for your perusal, should you desire to research the topic independently:

Tobacco.org

Dave Hitt's wonderfully informative site

WHO's Tobacco-Free Initiative (the main organizing body behind worldwide anti legislation)

Everything you never wanted to know about The Settlement

Tobacco U
And, finally, I couldn't resist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRt6I8ffu7s&feature=related

It would be nice to have some recent studies of the effects of pipe and cigar smoking, particularly when it's not inhaled, on smokers, but it seems like medical researchers are too busy concentrating on cigarettes and it's just too easy for them to lump all tobacco use into one category. I recently started dabbling with snuff and there's even less research on that. What little there is seems to suggest the health risks are almost nil. Personally, I don't smoke enough to really sit and worry about it too much.

Comming up for a year now that i stopped cigaretts dont have a craving at all

when in a building or in long ques dont have the need for the nic kick more than

happy with my 6 bowl a day

david

ps whish i could show my brother those adds long lectures about

smoking and he has the hart attack????

Pipes, Cigars, and

Low-Tar Cigarettes

“Low-tar” or “light” cigarettes were designed to

produce low machine-measured yields of tar and nicotine

(NCI 2001). Design characteristics of low-tar cigarettes

include increased ventilation and more rapid cigarette

burn rate. By changing the way they smoke or the number

of cigarettes smoked, persons who smoke these products

can obtain as much nicotine as from “regular” or “fullflavored” cigarettes, thereby satisfying their addiction

(USDHEW 1979; NCI 2001). Comprehensive reviews of

this issue concluded that use of low-tar cigarettes has not

resulted in meaningful reduction in the risk of CVD (NCI

2001; Stratton et al. 2001; Scientific Advisory Committee

on Tobacco Product Regulation 2002; USDHHS 2004).

Compared with persons who smoke cigarettes,

smokers who exclusively smoke pipes or cigars have lower

risk for many smoking-related diseases (NCI 1998). Smoke

from pipes and cigars contains the same toxic substances

as cigarette smoke, but those who use a pipe or cigar usually smoke at lower intensity; observation indicates that

they tend not to inhale the smoke, thus reducing their

exposure to its toxic substances (USDHEW 1979; NCI

1998; Shanks et al. 1998). Most current cigar users are

young males who often smoke less than one cigar daily

(NCI 1998); no data on risk for this population are available. For older adults who regularly use cigars, particularly those who smoke more than one cigar per day or inhale

the smoke, risk of CHD is modestly higher than that for

nonsmokers (NCI 1998; Iribarren et al. 1999; Jacobs et al.

1999b; Baker et al. 2000). Studies have reported similar

increases in risks for CHD and cerebrovascular disease for

persons who smoke a pipe exclusively (Henley et al. 2004).

Click to expand...

I read this in A Report of the Surgeon General - Chapter 6

I once had a doctor tell me that my bad back was caused by smoking. I promptly fired him and sought a new doctor.

Thanks for posting the signs Kevin. :rofl:
Pipe smokers should suffer the dire affects of second hand smoke. We do not inhale in general and we breath our own contaminated air! Where are the results? :crazy: