Oldest Tobacco That Exist?

[sablebrush52]

I hear what you're saying, but more people die as a result of heart disease, stroke, and diabetes which are a direct result of poor dietary choices and obesity. Should we also withhold medical assistance to anyone who eats McDonald's, Wendy's, or Taco Bell, or pizza, or drinks Coke, or eats Oreos, or ice cream? How about being sedentary, should we not offer heath assistance to those who don't log 10k steps a day? Personal liberty is messy, and often distasteful, but the alternative is way worse.

Perhaps we should. However, many of those other conditions are related to genetics making for a very complex set of variables to be weighed. But that's another argument for another day. I'm continuing the line of thought that suggests that freedom to smoke whould be considered exempt from responsibilities or consequences.

 

[mso489]

Virginia supposedly improves with age up to a point, and I wouldn't bet much beyond ten or twelve years. After that, maybe. Burley preserves well, and may improve a little depending on your tastes. Latakia and aromatics definitely decline after about five years depending on regional humidity, storage, etc. Mummified tobacco, mostly just dust, with possible rare exceptions to delight the imagination. My experience with Latakia is that it can be delicious aged for about one smoke after the tin is opened, and then suddenly it is gone, missing in action.

 

[Cotton1]

What type of ratio of natural leaf sugar to "peak age" I wonder. In addition the curing process.

 

[saltedplug]

I agree, and taking this argument to it's logical next step, should add that anyone who becomes ill from tobacco use should not receive any kind of medical assistance that they cannot cover out of pocket. No medical insurance coverage at all. No cost or burden to others based on our choices.

A large part of what's been driving the anti smoking movement has been the costs associated with smoking, about 30 to 40 billion dollars annually. By removing any underwritten costs, such as medical insurance, that number gets reduced significantly. Making smoking as a firing offense should cover the enormous labor cost. Now you are truly free to practice freedom of choice without interference from the smoke Nazis.

If you disagree with this then you are arguing that the state, or society, does have a right to make demands since they are also being required to cover the economic ripple effects of smoking.

At first I thought your tone variable or in some way ironic. But no, on second reading I think you were pursuing the logic of tobacco use in light of health care costs.

If you think of it, why should there be insurance coverage for those who use tobacco given the lockstep total rejection of it by the medical community, and why should there be employment? The FDA and WHO could be said to simply be enacting the medical mandate. In this my one back post romanced tobacco use and complained about its regulation.

Why should anyone bear the costs of tobacco use and addiction other than the users? Quitting can be very difficult, but it can certainly be done.

On the boards the health impact is usually denied, but who of us in the face of disease and death can continue smoking without it. When you smoke a bowl are your really remembering to think "This can kill me" but smoking on anyway?

I denied this with a fatalistic bravado.

Finally, if insurers and employers withdraw their financial support, are we going to do the same for alcohol and drug users, both whom are well-represented in hospitals and the constituents of rehabs. Duane Allman is said to have gone to rehab 17 times. Should he have been told at his second request to go to rehab "sorry, you had your chance"?

Similarly heroin users will OD more than a few times over the course of that use and be rushed to the hospital for resuscitation. Do EMTs provide care on site and drive the person to the hospital only if they verify insurance? If the patient is cared for at both junctures and the bill is sent to the insurer, do they deny coverage?

Why should anyone have to pay for my choices.

Pls. read: before I am set afire for this post, let me say that if I could, I would still smoke the pipe. When health concerns arose, I would probably say "so far, so good" while denying that I might have to suffer a preventible health malady.

Just my thoughts.

 

[anotherbob]

I've smoked a fair amount of senile, decrepit, nauseating, zombie vomit, ghastly, venerable vintages between 40 and 100 years of age. Like everything else on this good earth, tobacco matures, peaks, fades, and dies. There is the occasional fabulous smoke where the blend has pretty much held at or near its peak. But for the most part, these tobaccos have seen much better days, having faded to become wraiths of their former selves, or devolved into some really nasty tasting crap.

As a collector's object, the 18th hemp wound sailors tobacco makes for a unique artifact that presents an interesting story. But smoking it would be a waste of time, not to mention money. Still, there are plenty who would happily satisfy their curiosity before doubling over with extreme nausea and/or possibly being rushed to Emergency.

yeah it's not really tobacco at that point at least it's more of a historical artifact. And one that is extremely rare. One that you can't really get anywhere else.

 

[rajangan]

At first I thought your tone variable or in some way ironic. But no, on second reading I think you were pursuing the logic of tobacco use in light of health care costs.

If you think of it, why should there be insurance coverage for those who use tobacco given the lockstep total rejection of it by the medical community, and why should there be employment? The FDA and WHO could be said to simply be enacting the medical mandate. In this my one back post romanced tobacco use and complained about its regulation.

Why should anyone bear the costs of tobacco use and addiction other than the users? Quitting can be very difficult, but it can certainly be done.

On the boards the health impact is usually denied, but who of us in the face of disease and death can continue smoking without it. When you smoke a bowl are your really remembering to think "This can kill me" but smoking on anyway?

I denied this with a fatalistic bravado.

Finally, if insurers and employers withdraw their financial support, are we going to do the same for alcohol and drug users, both whom are well-represented in hospitals and the constituents of rehabs. Duane Allman is said to have gone to rehab 17 times. Should he have been told at his second request to go to rehab "sorry, you had your chance"?

Similarly heroin users will OD more than a few times over the course of that use and be rushed to the hospital for resuscitation. Do EMTs provide care on site and drive the person to the hospital only if they verify insurance? If the patient is cared for at both junctures and the bill is sent to the insurer, do they deny coverage?

Why should anyone have to pay for my choices.

Pls. read: before I am set afire for this post, let me say that if I could, I would still smoke the pipe. When health concerns arose, I would probably say "so far, so good" while denying that I might have to suffer a preventible health malady.

Just my thoughts.

I think this is in line with what you are saying. It is apparent that behavioral risk factors are too complicated an issue when it comes to fairly computing financial risk to insurance companies. Sure, they can use isolated statistics to dictate policy, but there's no way that they could account for a larger picture that includes multiple risk factors, and more importantly, also does the same analysis for all the non-smokers.

Like, I'm sorry, I maintain a healthy weight, eat well, have moderate exercise, read, don't consume alcohol or cannabis, don't inhale tobacco, and I'll be 'effed if I get denied insurance but they give it to some fat f*#k who doesn't smoke, drinks a six pack a day, and breathes heavy after getting out of his car.