Is a Light, Soft, Fluffy Pipe Smoke That Doubles as a Cigarette Blend Better?

[Epip Oc'Cabot]

While I cannot say with certainty, not been alive at that time….. I suspect that BEFORE cigarettes were available, that some (most?) pipe and cigar smokers inhaled at least occasionally if not regularly. In earlier times, tobacco was only smoked as a pipe or cigar, and was not adorned with all the “flavors” and what-not of the modern era. A pipe or cigar was just the available delivery system, and folks likely inhaled to maximize the ingestion of the nicotine of the pricey material.

 

[PaulTheScandinavian]

Smoking RYO in a pipe doesn't work for my wallet, above all else here in the UK. It costs twice as much as pipe tobacco.

I would much prefer to run Ashton's Gold Rush through a blender and smoke it RYO - I've tried it as-is and the flavour beats anything sold as RYO by a mile, cut a bit finer and it would win hands down.

Cigarette tobaccos just aren't that great, beyond getting a nicotine hit. My outright favorite used to be Van Nelle Zware, but even that hasn't the punch it used to have - in the olden days, it was a serious hit - and the taste isn't what it was.

There is an advocate of Rouseco Buoy Gold here, surprised we haven't heard from him

I used to smoke Van Nelle Zwaare Shag and other similar genuine Dutch Kentucky forward RYO tobaccies more than for 20 years ,back in the days the those were really good ones, bold and satisfying tobacco, even stronger than Gauloises , today all those went down hill and eventually lost all the boldness and strength very significantly

 

[Wisps77]

I used to smoke Van Nelle Zwaare Shag and other similar genuine Dutch Kentucky forward RYO tobaccies more than for 20 years ,back in the days the those were really good ones, bold and satisfying tobacco, even stronger than Gauloises , today all those went down hill and eventually lost all the boldness and strength very significantly

Do you have any experience with the Peter Stokkebye line of RYO? I was curious about it

 

[rakovsky]

Do you have any experience with the Peter Stokkebye line of RYO?

I don't, but a blind test done by a member here at a PA pipe club found that Cherokee Black RYO was as good or better than Peter Stokkebye's shag, Kendal's and another normal pipe tobacco.

 

[anotherbob]

Sable brush,
What makes most pipe blends unsuitable for inhaling? Is it that their casing, topping, or the thickness of their cut makes their smoke too dense/thick to inhale nicely?
I agree that RYO would fit the bill, and that Turkish blends like Sobranie would be a good choice.
In my OP, I want to ask whether the kind of nice soft fluffy tobacco that you can smoke nicely in a cigarette would be better to smoke in your pipe than regular pipe tobacco that you cannot easily smoke in a cigarette.
In other words, why wouldn't great fluffy soft light cigarette tobacco be comparably great to smoke in a pipe without inhaling it?

Also the PH and other factors effect how much the lungs even can absorb nicotine. The reasons are both simple and complex. For example PH is a huge part of how the lungs take in oxygen and expel carbon dioxide.

 

[Wisps77]

Also the PH and other factors effect how much the lungs even can absorb nicotine. The reasons are both simple and complex. For example PH is a huge part of how the lungs take in oxygen and expel carbon dioxide.

Hmm. I've never thought about it like that. But yes. Ph is vital for vitamin and mineral absorbtion. I'd say so goes for that too. That's interesting.

 

[anotherbob]

Hmm. I've never thought about it like that. But yes. Ph is vital for vitamin and mineral absorbtion. I'd say so goes for that too. That's interesting.

It was one of the many fascinating and thought provoking things I learned in anatomy class. Before that class I found the argument for our biology being proof of a divine hand silly. After those classes I found that argument much stronger.

 

[rakovsky]

You are making me want to talk philosophical theology. Supposing that based on our direct observations of the natural world we conclude that millions of years of geological change and biological evolution led to our current state. Such a conclusion would not rule out divine involvement.

 

[Wisps77]

It was one of the many fascinating and thought provoking things I learned in anatomy class. Before that class I found the argument for our biology being proof of a divine hand silly. After those classes I found that argument much stronger

You are making me want to talk philosophical theology. Supposing that based on our direct observations of the natural world we conclude that millions of years of geological change and biological evolution led to our current state. Such a conclusion would not rule out divine involvement.

What "current state" are you referring to?

 

[rakovsky]

((Supposing that based on our direct observations of the natural world we conclude that millions of years of geological change and biological evolution led to our current state.))~Rako
What "current state" are you referring to?

Wisps, I meant it in a simple physical way.
Suppose that millions of years ago the earth was quite hotter or colder than today and mammals existed but humans did not. Then as mammals formed into humans, perhaps being shorter than today. So after millions of years of geological change and mammalian evolution, the earth and humans achieved their "current state". That is, now in 2025 the earth has its form and temperature and we humans have our physiological functions and anatomical form.

 

[woodsroad]

Wisps, I meant it in a simple physical way.
Suppose that millions of years ago the earth was quite hotter or colder than today and mammals existed but humans did not. Then as mammals formed into humans, perhaps being shorter than today. So after millions of years of geological change and mammalian evolution, the earth and humans achieved their "current state". That is, now in 2025 the earth has its form and temperature and we humans have our physiological functions and anatomical form.

Humans have been in a state of devolution for a couple hundred years (or more) now. Actually, as soon as humans could do things to lower infant and child mortality, we began to devolve. Once we reduced mortality enough that more people lived long enough to conceive and bear children, we were done for.

Are we not men?!

 

[Wisps77]

Wisps, I meant it in a simple physical way.
Suppose that millions of years ago the earth was quite hotter or colder than today and mammals existed but humans did not. Then as mammals formed into humans, perhaps being shorter than today. So after millions of years of geological change and mammalian evolution, the earth and humans achieved their "current state". That is, now in 2025 the earth has its form and temperature and we humans have our physiological functions and anatomical form.

Yes. That's precisely what I thought you ment.