Why Switch from Cigarettes to Pipe?

Log in

SmokingPipes.com Updates

Watch for Updates Twice a Week

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

Tobacco Treasures Ad

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

Anchovies

Might Stick Around
Oh, so you'd rather listen to old wives tales than a study based on facts?

"due to the meditative effects " Close but no cigar.
The U.S. Surgeon Generals report also found that pipe smokers who do not inhale, have a life expectancy three years beyond that of a non-smoker. [But what the hell does that guy know, right? :LOL:]

That I suspect is due to the meditative benefits and the fact that a fair proportion of pipe smokers who don't inhale tend to smoke one or two bowls daily.

It should be obvious that the main thing that explains the mortality rate differences between pipe and cigarette smokers is the staggering amount of chemicals that are added to cigarettes that aren't added to pipe tobacco.

But hey, it's a free world to ignore facts and make shit up to fit your imagination and cognitive dissonance I guess.
Make your old granny and her spinster friends proud. They're never wrong, right? :ROFLMAO:
Take it easy. You're getting very defensive over a totally reasonable post.

The thing about the meditative effects is not something I just made up. Although if it were it would still be totally reasonable to speculate upon it. From memory, it's actually exactly what the paper you are are referring to hypothesized!

Second, what I said was totally reasonable and accurate. Cherry-picking one scientific paper, let alone one single scientist, because you like what they're saying and then getting super defensive about is just not how science works I'm sorry. A consensus needs to be established through peer review. That is The Scientific Method. In this case, that simply has not been done.

That's not to say it's not true. It might be true. But it also might not be true. And personally, until there is more evidence and research done on this subject, I will remain extremely sceptical that inhaling burning smoke into ones lungs on a regular basis is harmless. It just does not make sense. And it's wishful-thinking to believe that cigarettes are only harmful because they contain "chemicals". Everything contains chemicals. The world is made of chemicals. Even fire-fighters have hugely increased risk of chronic lung disease, even the ones who spend most of their career fighting forest fires in Australia.

It seems that inhaling smoke is just not good for your lungs. This shouldn't be shocking or controversial.
 
Last edited:

hairvise

Can't Leave
May 23, 2018
436
2,637
San Francisco
Gents, we all should IMHO understand the risks of pipe smoking. That surgeon general report is very old and I believe the fact about living longer may only take into account lung cancer. But smoking can damage many parts of the body.
Here’s what I mean:


I’ve read many reports and studies, and I come away with the importance of frequency (how often during the day) and duration (for how many years). In other words, the dosage makes the poison.

In no way am I trying to stir up anything— but I do believe that the more information, the better for making decisions.
 

Casual

Lifer
Oct 3, 2019
2,582
9,362
NL, CA
I’ve read many reports and studies, and I come away with the importance of frequency (how often during the day) and duration (for how many years). In other words, the dosage makes the poison.
Thanks for that study, it was interesting. It is so hard to get good data, and one never knows when one is looking at a piece of propaganda or not.

On the subject of the dose making the poison, I notice that they stratified the pipe smoker data into how many “pipes” per day: “Never”, 1-10, and >10.

It’s interesting because that list is not exhaustive, and many here actually fall into a lower category than 1-10, only smoking one bowl per day, and not even every day. Perhaps that counted in 1-10. But at least it’s interesting to see that many here are at quite a low dose. Let’s hope the risk is similarly lessened.
 

hairvise

Can't Leave
May 23, 2018
436
2,637
San Francisco
Thanks for that study, it was interesting. It is so hard to get good data, and one never knows when one is looking at a piece of propaganda or not.

On the subject of the dose making the poison, I notice that they stratified the pipe smoker data into how many “pipes” per day: “Never”, 1-10, and >10.

It’s interesting because that list is not exhaustive, and many here actually fall into a lower category than 1-10, only smoking one bowl per day, and not even every day. Perhaps that counted in 1-10. But at least it’s interesting to see that many here are at quite a low dose. Let’s hope the risk is similarly lessened.
I think that’s a very nuanced and smart approach to looking at this study and applies to others that I have seen.
 

Anchovies

Might Stick Around
Gents, we all should IMHO understand the risks of pipe smoking. That surgeon general report is very old and I believe the fact about living longer may only take into account lung cancer. But smoking can damage many parts of the body.
Here’s what I mean:


I’ve read many reports and studies, and I come away with the importance of frequency (how often during the day) and duration (for how many years). In other words, the dosage makes the poison.

In no way am I trying to stir up anything— but I do believe that the more information, the better for making decisions.
It’s always best to look reality dead in the eye.

That said I do believe that the health risks of moderate pipe smoking without inhalation are probably negligible. I don’t know for a fact but it’s my bet.

The claim that regular pipe smokers (or any smoker) who inhales the smoke is just as healthy as a non-smoker - just as long as it’s not cigarettes - stretches the bounds of believability to the extreme.

Still … maybe. I don’t know anything for sure.
 

Peter - CCB

Starting to Get Obsessed
Dec 26, 2019
214
761
43
Santa Barbara, CA
www.etsy.com
Helped me quite and I had a unique perspective. Wife quit same time without use of a pipe. It helped so much with the routine, a bit of nicotine but not much compared to Cigs, eventually I stopped going for the cig and straight to the pipe. My wife still smokes Cigs.
 
Mar 8, 2022
21
195
Missouri
Never smoked cigarettes, but could definitely get into them. When my wife and i were engaged, convinced her to quit smoking cigs, but did tell her i planned on taking up the pipe when i was 40. Fast forward 20 years and i did just that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sandollars

Pipeoff

Starting to Get Obsessed
Jun 22, 2021
295
610
Western New York
Title edited. Rule 9

Not long after I got into pipes, I just thought that pipes would feel better.
Cigs cost almost a buck a stick. Addictive because of inhale, not only nic but the cut off of o2 upon exhale when smoke leaves the rush gives you an uplift feeling. Tobac is for flavor in a pipe with many blend choices.
 
  • Love
Reactions: anotherbob

anotherbob

Lifer
Mar 30, 2019
11,695
22,011
44
In the semi-rural NorthEastern USA
Humility is always a good approach. One little known fact is that any new Watch City Cigar new release featuring virginia and/or virginia perique is especially dangerous and I suggest you avoid. I saw a study about it but for some reason I just can’t locate it right now! 😉
all that said. Pipes are safer. You can demonstrate so simply by aggregating date and all that boring stuff. Not saying it's harm free but it's pretty demonstrable. Oh and also got that from a very anti tobacco researcher too. Oral and throat cancers are way higher in cig smokers then dippers, pipe smokers, or cigar smokers. Same with heart diseases. In fact they're starting to think that the primary heart risk from cigs isn't from the nicotine but a combination of damage to lungs (makes the heart have to work harder) the insane amount of carbon monoxide in cig smokes being intentionally inhaled, which binds to the red blood cells significantly reducing the amount of oxygen they can carry, and lastly the mild stimulation of nicotine compounding those other two significant issues.
It's just a fact pipes are way safer then cigs.
Oh and there is no evidence that all the additives in cigs make that big of a difference in the long run. American Spirit cigs are not really healthier then other cigs.
 

anotherbob

Lifer
Mar 30, 2019
11,695
22,011
44
In the semi-rural NorthEastern USA
Flavor and a longer enjoyment. Much more socially acceptable as well.

Jef
I've never had anyone tell me how cool it is that I am smoking a cig or how great it smells (aside from with Nat Shermans).
Another thing to think about. When people see you smoking a pipe it reminds them of grandpa and with cigs it reminds them of grandpas lung cancer or stoma.
 

hairvise

Can't Leave
May 23, 2018
436
2,637
San Francisco
all that said. Pipes are safer. You can demonstrate so simply by aggregating date and all that boring stuff. Not saying it's harm free but it's pretty demonstrable. Oh and also got that from a very anti tobacco researcher too. Oral and throat cancers are way higher in cig smokers then dippers, pipe smokers, or cigar smokers. Same with heart diseases. In fact they're starting to think that the primary heart risk from cigs isn't from the nicotine but a combination of damage to lungs (makes the heart have to work harder) the insane amount of carbon monoxide in cig smokes being intentionally inhaled, which binds to the red blood cells significantly reducing the amount of oxygen they can carry, and lastly the mild stimulation of nicotine compounding those other two significant issues.
It's just a fact pipes are way safer then cigs.
Oh and there is no evidence that all the additives in cigs make that big of a difference in the long run. American Spirit cigs are not really healthier then other cigs.
there’s no doubt that cigarettes are the most dangerous and I appreciate your analysis of why that’s the case. I also agree that I would be wary of the “no additives” in AS makes it safer. It’s difficult I think to do studies on pipe smoking because there just aren’t that many of us. I think the Scandinavian countries have done the most research on it.
 

anotherbob

Lifer
Mar 30, 2019
11,695
22,011
44
In the semi-rural NorthEastern USA
there’s no doubt that cigarettes are the most dangerous and I appreciate your analysis of why that’s the case. I also agree that I would be wary of the “no additives” in AS makes it safer. It’s difficult I think to do studies on pipe smoking because there just aren’t that many of us. I think the Scandinavian countries have done the most research on it.
there are enough to demonstrate a significant difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hairvise

mateusbrown

Lurker
Apr 24, 2022
16
53
Georgia, USA
I had the initial idea that I would replace cigarettes with the pipe, but it has not turned out that way after a few months of both. I will smoke a pipe, and then I will want to smoke a cigarette not too much later. I don't inhale either one. There is inhaling by default since I smoke the pipe indoors whereas I only smoke a cigarette outdoors. I smoke a cigarette just like you would a cigar or pipe, only taking it into the mouth, which leads me to believe I may not be as addicted as I think to the nicotine as I will sometimes go most of the day without smoking after the initial morning-time hit of a pipe followed up with at least three cigarettes while drinking coffee. This sounds unbelievable, but I guess I never learned to do it the "right way." I have noticed that hard-core cigarette smokers deep-inhale hold it in and don't really exhale too much smoke whereas that is not what I do. If I had been smoking "correctly" for the past 30 years, I also doubt I'd be able to run and lift weights, etc. like I do. I'm not saying I'm under the delusion that what I do is healthy by any means, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ray47