# Lifestyles & Discussion > Freedom Living >  Does naturally growing tobacco cause cancer?

## newyearsrevolution08

Have there been any cases of naturally growing tobacco causing cancer OR have they 100% been from the chemically added smokes that are being sold to us?

Reason I ask, I miss smoking cigs but don't really want to die because of a habit. If I could grow my own tobacco AND have no issue with cancer than that is the route I want to take.

Also if that is infact the case I would want to get all of my smoking friends on naturally grown tobacco as well.

Reason I ask, marijuana has NEVER been the cause of cancer so to me that eliminates the "smoke" factor so has there been studies to figure out what exactly in cigarettes causes cancer and other disease issues?

----------


## pacelli

Read p. 134 here. It is copyrighted so cannot cut & paste:

http://books.google.com/books?id=NEf...m=10&ct=result

----------


## pcosmar

I will die, Just as sure as I was born.
The eventual cause will matter less than how I live.

I smoke,
I quit twice in my life, 
I enjoy tobacco.

----------


## dannno

No, I don't think naturally growing tobacco causes cancer at the rates we are seeing. 

I would say at least 9 out of 10 people who get cancer from cigs get it from the fertilizers they use, which creates a dust that sticks to the tobacco, and also from exhaust emitted from the heating equipment during the curing process. 

I think it's illegal to grow your own tobacco.

If you have to smoke, go for the American Spirits.. organic if possible. I still don't recommend smoking tobacco, though, because people tend to really suck them down. I found it is pretty addictive stuff. 

Another option is to get DRUM rolling tobacco and roll your own. You won't smoke as many cigs because you have to go through the effort of rolling them. I dunno if their tobacco is more pure than the commercial stuff, but it sure does taste better.

----------


## Dieseler

Its not illegal to grow your own. I'm considering buying some seed this year myself.
Heres a neat site.
http://www.coffinails.com/growing.html
I run across some ancient texts on the matter of growing and curing last week but I can't remember the site I was on.
Found the ancient text. http://www.archive.org/details/tobac...ngcu00lockrich
Theres a lot of good stuff on this site.

----------


## tmosley

It's $#@!ing smoke, you are putting it into your lungs.  Of course it causes cancer.

It's like asking if living inside of a burning house, so long as it's made out of 100% all-natural products is safe.  Sure, the smoke might not be as thick, but it'll still suffocate you.

It might be safe in moderation, but if you do it every day, you're probably going to shorten your lifespan.  Seriously, don't smoke.

----------


## newyearsrevolution08

> It's $#@!ing smoke, you are putting it into your lungs.  Of course it causes cancer.
> 
> It's like asking if living inside of a burning house, so long as it's made out of 100% all-natural products is safe.  Sure, the smoke might not be as thick, but it'll still suffocate you.
> 
> It might be safe in moderation, but if you do it every day, you're probably going to shorten your lifespan.  Seriously, don't smoke.


what does "suffocate" have to do with cancer my friend?

If your theory was correct then most if not ALL fire fighters would have cancer CURRENTLY.

----------


## JeNNiF00F00

> It's $#@!ing smoke, you are putting it into your lungs.  Of course it causes cancer.
> 
> It's like asking if living inside of a burning house, so long as it's made out of 100% all-natural products is safe.  Sure, the smoke might not be as thick, but it'll still suffocate you.
> 
> It might be safe in moderation, but if you do it every day, you're probably going to shorten your lifespan.  Seriously, don't smoke.


People are going to smoke whether you like it or not.  If I smoked, id much rather smoke something organically grown in my own garden than from some company with amped up prices pumping tons of cancer causing chemicals in the product.

----------


## LittleLightShining

> No, I don't think naturally growing tobacco causes cancer at the rates we are seeing. 
> 
> I would say at least 9 out of 10 people who get cancer from cigs get it from the fertilizers they use, which creates a dust that sticks to the tobacco, and also from exhaust emitted from the heating equipment during the curing process. 
> 
> I think it's illegal to grow your own tobacco.
> 
> If you have to smoke, go for the American Spirits.. organic if possible. I still don't recommend smoking tobacco, though, because people tend to really suck them down. I found it is pretty addictive stuff. 
> 
> Another option is to get DRUM rolling tobacco and roll your own. You won't smoke as many cigs because you have to go through the effort of rolling them. I dunno if their tobacco is more pure than the commercial stuff, but it sure does taste better.


I started smoking when I was 13. I quit when I was 23 for a couple of years then started again. Then I quit again, started again and quit again for about 5 years. I always smoked commercial cigarettes, usually around 3/4 to a pack a day or more when I was drinking. I started smoking again last spring. 

At first I was rolling my own from American Spirit organic tobacco. I would make a little filter from a part of a cotton ball but a lot of the tarry stuff would make it through so I said the heck with it and started buying packs of Am. Spirit organic cigarettes or Nat Sherman all naturals. I light an average of 6 cigarettes a day but usually don't even finish them.

I definitely think the organic and all natural, more expensive cigarettes are less addictive.

Also, I know you can buy tobacco seeds.

----------


## Ninja Homer

> Have there been any cases of naturally growing tobacco causing cancer OR have they 100% been from the chemically added smokes that are being sold to us?
> 
> Reason I ask, I miss smoking cigs but don't really want to die because of a habit. If I could grow my own tobacco AND have no issue with cancer than that is the route I want to take.
> 
> Also if that is infact the case I would want to get all of my smoking friends on naturally grown tobacco as well.
> 
> Reason I ask, marijuana has NEVER been the cause of cancer so to me that eliminates the "smoke" factor so has there been studies to figure out what exactly in cigarettes causes cancer and other disease issues?


This should answer a lot of your questions: http://home.ktc.com/bdrake/pest.html

US grown tobacco has the least amount of harmful chemicals of any tobacco in the world, because they have the tightest restrictions on what can be used to grow crops.  However, US grown tobacco, for the most part, is shipped to Europe, because Europe has much tighter restrictions on what can be sold to the public.

Almost all tobacco in commercial cigarettes sold in the US is shipped in from 3rd world countries that have much looser restrictions on the chemicals they can use, if they have any restrictions at all.  Not only that, US commercial cigarettes are made from "sheet tobacco".  Sheet tobacco is made from taking all the waste from tobacco such as stems, stocks, and other waste,  and then they form sheets by adding glue, fungicides, flavors and colors to make it taste and look like real tobacco, and other chemicals.  This is the crap that is sold as cigarettes in the US.

There's a lot more info on this at the above link.

Will organic tobacco cause cancer?  Probably not, all by itself, but it will still contribute.  The human body can actually process quite a bit of toxins.  If a person's cleansing organs are all functioning well, then they should easily be able to clear out any toxins you inhale by smoking organic tobacco.  These cleansing organs are the liver, kidneys, colon, skin, and lungs.  If you take in more toxins than these organs can process, then everything backs up and clogs up, and any toxin you take into your body will stay there and contribute to developing cancer.

To reverse the build up of toxicity, do colon cleanses, liver/gallbladder cleanses, and kidney cleanses (search at http://curezone.com or get this book: http://ener-chi.com/books.htm#amazing).  This will "unclog" those cleansing organs so they can function properly and continue their job of keeping the body clean.  Skin releases toxins by sweating.  Take showers when you sweat, don't put chemicals on your skin (which actually soak into your body through your skin and contribute to the problem), and don't use anti-perspirants (deodorants are fine, but armpits sweat for a reason... it releases toxins from lymph nodes).  The lungs will clean themselves out as long as you get clean air once in a while, so taking a break from smoking every now and then is good.  When you cough up phlegm, it's the lungs way of getting rid of toxins, so spit it out.  When lungs need a good cleaning, you'll usually get a cold.  Don't take cough syrup... the coughing is actually good for you because it helps the lungs clear out toxins.

Don't take "medicine" that just treats the symptoms of simple viruses.  The human body has antibodies to kill off almost any virus immediately.  The only reason you catch a virus is because the body lets it in so that the symptoms of the virus help clear the body of toxins.  Coughing clears toxins from the lungs.  A fever helps you sweat out toxins.  An infection helps break down toxins from the infected area.  Nausea forces you to fast so the kidneys, liver, and colon can have a little reprieve from processing your food and instead clean your blood and themselves.  Diarrhea cleanses the colon.  If people stopped treating the symptoms of little viruses, they'd be a lot less likely to develop big diseases like cancer and heart disease.

Sorry, went a bit off topic there, but I think it's stuff that everybody should know, and very few do.

A hundred years ago, there was probably a higher rate of people who used tobacco products, and yet cancer at that time was still a relatively rare disease.  What's changed in the last hundred years is that there's now a lot of chemicals in tobacco.  There's also chemicals in almost all food and water.  People now treat the symptoms of almost any little sickness they get rather than riding it out, getting some rest, and releasing some toxins.  It all adds up to more toxicity within the body.  They say now that 1 in 4 people will get cancer in their lifetime, and that number is expected to grow to 1 in 2.

Organic tobacco isn't going to help somebody not get cancer; it's still best to quit all together.  However, if it's a choice between smoking organic tobacco or the crap in commercial US cigarettes, then going with organic tobacco will be a lot better for you.

The only organic tobacco I know of that you can go out and buy is American Spirit.  If you buy it by the pouch, and roll your own, it will probably cost about the same or less as buying the pre-rolled crappy cigarettes, because loose tobacco isn't taxed nearly as much (in most states anyway).  American Spirit also has 100% US grown tobacco in tins, and that will be a lot cheaper than pre-rolled crappy cigarettes.  It's not as good as the organic, but it's way better than any sheet tobacco.  The easiest and quickest way to roll your own is to buy filter tubes and a little machine that stuffs tobacco into them.  It costs $2-$3 for 200 filter tubes.  You'll end up with a bunch of extra rolling papers that come with the tobacco, but I'm sure you'll find a use for them.

----------


## pcosmar

Fish don't smoke. (well unless you smoke fish, but that is another discussion)
Fish get cancer.
If smoking *causes* cancer, How do fish get cancer?

Why do some people who smoke tobacco, not get cancer?

Please explain. 

Cause?
Or a possible contributing factor?

I have heard too much hype and bull$#@! over the years. Makes me skeptical.
Could it be that cancer is a naturally occurring phenomenon? 
Could it be that there are a great many "possible" contributing factors.?
Could it be that grant money for studies is too easy to get?

----------


## tmosley

> Fish don't smoke. (well unless you smoke fish, but that is another discussion)
> Fish get cancer.
> If smoking *causes* cancer, How do fish get cancer?
> 
> Why do some people who smoke tobacco, not get cancer?
> 
> Please explain. 
> 
> Cause?
> ...


95% of lung cancers are caused by smoking.  97% of oral and throat cancers are caused by tobacco use.  

If you want to shoot yourself in the head, that's fine by me.  Just don't try to tell me that an all natural bullet is going to do less (or no) damage.

Inhaling smoke IS NOT NATURAL.  Why do you think it makes you cough?  Your body doesn't like it.  You want to get high?  Smoke some weed.  You don't have to inhale nearly as much smoke to get high.

Nicotine is an extremely potent poison.  If you extract the nicotine from two packs of cigarettes, you will have enough to kill 3-4 people (ever read the Anarchists Handbook?  It's in there).  It causes a heart attack.  If you want to put a "natural" poison in your body, fine.  Just be honest about it and stop spreading disinformation.  That $#@! is DEADLY.

Just because the government says it's bad doesn't mean it isn't.  Don't be contrary just to be contrary.  It'll lead you right off of a cliff most of the time.

----------


## The_Orlonater

> This should answer a lot of your questions: [url]http://home.ktc.com/bdrake/pest.html


Thanks for the info!

----------


## The_Orlonater

> 95% of lung cancers are caused by smoking.  97% of oral and throat cancers are caused by tobacco use.  
> 
> If you want to shoot yourself in the head, that's fine by me.  Just don't try to tell me that an all natural bullet is going to do less (or no) damage.
> 
> Inhaling smoke IS NOT NATURAL.  Why do you think it makes you cough?  Your body doesn't like it.  You want to get high?  Smoke some weed.  You don't have to inhale nearly as much smoke to get high.
> 
> Nicotine is an extremely potent poison.  If you extract the nicotine from two packs of cigarettes, you will have enough to kill 3-4 people (ever read the Anarchists Handbook?  It's in there).  It causes a heart attack.  If you want to put a "natural" poison in your body, fine.  Just be honest about it and stop spreading disinformation.  That $#@! is DEADLY.
> 
> Just because the government says it's bad doesn't mean it isn't.  Don't be contrary just to be contrary.  It'll lead you right off of a cliff most of the time.


http://home.ktc.com/bdrake/pest.html

Read this, it's good information. Stop being so one sided, read this and we'll talk about it. I'm noncommittal at this point.

----------


## newyearsrevolution08

I know that cancer can be caused by many things. I do believe that what goes into commercial cigs i a contributing factor and I STILL know that I could end up with colon cancer or some other FORM BUT if I grew 100% organic tobacco would it be the SMOKE that is that cancer contributing issue OR is it the chemicals they put in the tobacco whether as an additive or growing chemical that does it?

Has anyone proved that "smoke" causes cancer or contributes to the cancer or is it whats in the thing you smoke.

Reason I ask is, marijuana has NEVER not a once caused any form of cancer EVER. Not a single issue has been reported correct?

So if that is the case then there is something different between the smoke from marijuana and the smoke from cigarettes that is causing it and not simply "smoke"

----------


## Zippyjuan

Just because something is grown organically does not necessarily mean that is is better- either for you or the environment. Germany banned American Spirits for misleading advertising. 
http://www.medindia.net/news/Tobacco...ic-41480-1.htm



> Tobacco Company Banned from Marketing Its Cigarette as organic
> 
>  A German court ruled on Friday that a popular US tobacco company cannot continue marketing its cigarettes as organic. The court order says that such a marketing gimmick amounts to misleading consumers and gives way for unfair competition. The company, however, maintains that its cigarette complies with all EU regulations on organic products. 
> 
> The regional court in this northern city said that Santa Fe Natural Tobacco may no longer sell its Natural American Spirit brand with the label "organic filter cigarettes", a spokeswoman told AFP. 
> 
> *"The concept 'organic' implies that such a cigarette is not harmful" and thus violates national tobacco and business competition laws, she said.* 
> The company, whose German unit is based in Hamburg, says its cigarettes are made with "100 percent organic tobacco" and biodegradable paper filters and complies with EU rules for organic products. 
> 
> Santa Fe Natural Tobacco is a unit of Reynolds American, formerly known as R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings.


I prefer to breath air, not burning trash.

----------


## LittleLightShining

> You want to get high?  Smoke some weed.  You don't have to inhale nearly as much smoke to get high.


 I don't want to get high. I like the sensation of smoking. To each his own.

Also, I'm not a moron. I know organic cigarettes aren't safe but they probably are safer-- for the smoker and for people that are exposed to the secondhand smoke.

----------


## newyearsrevolution08

> Just because something is grown organically does not necessarily mean that is is better- either for you or the environment. Germany banned American Spirits for misleading advertising. 
> http://www.medindia.net/news/Tobacco...ic-41480-1.htm
> 
> 
> I prefer to breath air, not burning trash.


I never said organic meant completely healthy. "Misleading advertising" and the product itself IF it contains the same b.s. still means that it is still commercial tobacco.

I am simply saying "naturally grown" as in no additives at all LIKE marijuana for instance. As in marijuana SMOKE itself has not even been a contributing factor CAUSING cancer or related to it so why can't naturally grown tobacco have that same ability?

As in no added chemicals and so forth put into the tobacco.

I too understand that SMOKE for your lungs can't be great, but why would marijuana smoke not cause cancer IF cigarette smoke can or as a contributing factor?

I am not saying that smoking can be GOOD for you BUT if tobacco in its natural and plant form contains the same "Cancer assisting" attributes then why do they add anything chemically to the tobacco in the first place?

ORGANIC = not harmful? where did that come from?

Organic mushrooms could be harmful, organically grown anything COULD be harmful BUT.......

marijuana smoke = no cancer
commercial cigarettes = cancer or contributes to forms of cancer
NATURAL tobacco plant = cancer or no cancer?

----------


## driller80545

People who don't like smoking should not smoke. I don't like car exhaust, so I stay out of cities. Please don't use cancer like a tool.

----------


## Matt Collins

> I think it's illegal to grow your own tobacco.


I think it might depend on the State. Another fine example of big business using big government as their tool to regulate and legislate in their favor.

----------


## WRellim

> Have there been any cases of naturally growing tobacco causing cancer OR have they 100% been from the chemically added smokes that are being sold to us?
> 
> Reason I ask, I miss smoking cigs but don't really want to die because of a habit. If I could grow my own tobacco AND have no issue with cancer than that is the route I want to take.
> 
> Also if that is infact the case I would want to get all of my smoking friends on naturally grown tobacco as well.
> 
> Reason I ask, marijuana has NEVER been the cause of cancer so to me that eliminates the "smoke" factor so has there been studies to figure out what exactly in cigarettes causes cancer and other disease issues?


Most people (including those in the medical profession) are demonstrably ignorant of the causes of the vast majority of cancers; hence we get the vague and ill-defined miasma-like statements about a boatload of unrelated "predispositions" and "risk" factors (yeah, it's either "genetic" or "environmental" -- which is the equivalent of saying it's "something we don't know").

Truth of the matter is that *a significant number of cancers are irrefutably KNOWN to be directly caused by Viral and Bacterial Infections*, for example the one you probably DO know about**:

*Cervical Cancer* -- Sexual transmission of the Human Papilloma Virus (especially types 16, 18, 31 and 45).
_People (at least those that pay attention to the news) should by now know about the cause of cervical cancer because of the recent uproar over Gardasil, the HPV vaccine (and the suggestions for vaccinating young girls).
_

_But what is LITTLE known is that the same virus types are also linked as a major cause of the following cancers:
_
*Anal* and *Colon* Cancers*Vulvar* Cancer*Penile* Cancer
_...and you'll probably be "shocked" to learn they are also a known cause of..._
*Oropharyngeal* (Head and Neck) Cancers


Then there are other cancers which are known to be caused in significant part by infections, such as...

*Liver* Cancer -- Hepatitus B and C (which CAN be transitted via fluids, but is most commonly an STD).*Leukemia --* HTLV (aka Human T-Cell Lymphotropic Virus -- a seldom discussed retrovirus {like HIV} that is also typically transmitted as an STD.)*Nasopharyngeal* Cancer -- Epstein-Barr Virus (commonly known as "mononucleosis" but formally known as *Human herpesvirus 4* -- that's right, a form of HERPES... another STD).*Burkitt's lymphoma* (Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma) -- Epstein Barr again.
In fact, currently, *approximately 20% of all human cancers (and significantly more animal cancers) are known to have INFECTIOUS CAUSES* (Viral and Bacterial). **

 And *less than 5% of all human cancers are known to be caused by "environmental" carcinogens* -- WITHOUT "assistance" from infectious organisms**  (and the biggest share of those are melanomas caused by overexposure to the Sun and other UV light -- also, Baz Luhrman's advice may in effect be flat-out wrong, there is still a controversy over suncreen -- what is uncertain is whether the ingredients are harmful, or if it is the fact that it inhibits Vitamin D production, or if its use just means people increase their exposure -- regardless, as sunscreen use increase, so apparently do melanomas).



You see, there are a host of other cancers that _seem_ to have viral infectious links -- but little research is being done on these. (Why?  Because it's not politically correct.  And also, because of the present investment driven "fad" of DNA-sequencing technology {those machines are "cool" AND they are expensive -- cancer research grants help pay for the toys!) End result is that doing "genetic" research on cancer "predispositions" is currently all the rage, it's super easy to get funding for, and therefore much more "profitable" in the gross sense of dollars, and is quite frankly just plain "sexier" in terms of career advancement.) 

Nevertheless, small studies ARE advancing this research, and some of the common cancers (and their likely infectious causes) include:

*Pancreatic* cancer -- probable cause _Heliobacter pylori_ (mainly known as the ulcer causing bacteria) -- other possible causes are any of several  bacteria that cause Gingivitis (aka gum inflammation).*Breast* cancer -- several possibilities that are only now being given consideration as _possible_ causes, including strains of the _Chlamydia_ bacteria (STD), a previously unknown virus called _HHMMTV_ (human homologue of mouse mammary tumour virus), another previously unknown virus called CMV (cytomegalovirus -- transmitted via bodily fluids, aka STD), and once again, our old friend Epstein-Barr (aka the _Herpes_ STD virus commonly known as "mononucleosis").*Prostate* cancer -- currently the main suspect is XMRV (a retrovirus, possibly transmitted sexually -- most known retroviruses are STD's) -- other likely candidates are varieties of Human Papilloma Viruses (HPV, again these are STD's).*Ovarian* cancer -- possible causes include certain strains of _Mumps_ virus, and/or possibly the Human Papilloma Viruses.
And of course the BIG ONE that everyone is "certain" they know the cause...

*Lung* cancer -- Potential infectious causes include _Chlamydia pneumoniae_ bacteria (which smoking may increase the incidence/severity of); and other possible caused being investigated are certain types of _Human Papilloma Virus_ (HPV... again), and strangely enough the _Measles_ virus is being fingered as a possible cause of "predisposition" that affects DNA susceptibility to onset in later years.  (Unfortunately, very little research is being done on these, primarily because _EVERYONE_ is convinced {after decades of media pummeling} that the statistical "correlation" data somehow proves tobacco to be virtually THE main/sole/prime cause (even absent any scientifically proven "mechanism" of action). And this also despite the "falsifying" evidence of a significant number of lifetime non-smokers getting it -- explained away via the ever-tenuous "secondhand smoke" theory -- though the fact that non-smoker incidence is no lower even though decades of smoking restriction have lessened the correllation).
Now why is all that so important... well, while all of the propaganda (ads, movies, congressional hearings, etc) have raised the popular ire against those nasty "cigarettes" and the evil "tobacco" companies... in other words, while your attention has been directed elsewhere...

*Meanwhile cancer incidence (ALL types of cancers) have been growing significantly -- and these have all occured in parallel to an increased demand for "sexual freedom" and the ending of centuries of cultural inhibitions against promiscuity.

*Yet if you LOOK AGAIN at the list of KNOWN infectious causes of cancers (much less the "suspected" causes of dozens of other cancers)... you see a direct, unavoidable CAUSAL relationship between STD's and cancer.

*Hmmm...**Getting the picture yet?

If you really want to avoid getting cancer --* go ahead and have the (occasional) cigarette --* but AVOID the "casual sex" beforehand* (because STD's are the KNOWN primary cause of a significant number of cancers -- including the deadliest ones).

*Now why doesn't your doctor tell you that?* 
(And where are the TV ads or Billboards about avoiding promiscuity to reduce cancer incidence?) 

Why aren't the liberals -- who are so "concerned" about everyone's health and the "costs to society" of cancer -- and therefore want to ban tobacco and smoking everywhere... *

Why aren't they trying to "ban" STD's and the promiscuous "casual sex" that transmits them -- which are KNOWN to cause multiple cancers, and suspect in many others? 

*(Oh, and by the way ...HPV, Epstein-Barr, and a vast number of the other STD viruses that are oncogenic -- CAN all still be transmitted even if you wear prophylactic "protection" -- so that condom might prevent the pregnancy, but it probably isn't going to prevent the STD that gives you cancer.)Final truth of the matter is that "smoking" of tobacco probably DOES increase ones risk of cancer -- but mainly by reducing the bodies defenses to pneumonia and a host of other respiratory infections -- and therefore facilitating or enabling some (currently unknown) viral and/or bacterial root cause. *So whether "all natural" or commercially grown -- either way the same result may occur -- and smoking quantities of anything may ENABLE the harmful infections and increase the likelihood of a resulting cancer.*

And the reason why tobacco smoking is more likely to be correllated to lung cancer than smoking of other "weeds" is simply one of quantity. The typcal cigarette smoker burns his or her way through a pack of 20 (or more) cigarettes in a day -- and frequently (especially with workplace restrictions) those are smoked within an 8 hour period (or less).  Conversely, people who smoke those other substances do so in much smaller quantities. An additional factor may include not only the chemicals in commercial tobacco, but also the materials used in the cigarette papers, and the plastics and other compounds present in the filters and flavorings (which are notably absent with "other" smoked substances). 

Likewise, with tobacco "chew" and "snuff" -- these (and the host of chemicals they contain) may effectively kill beneficial bacteria in the mouth and thus foster other (more harmful) mouth flora which then cause gingivitis and other inflammations/infections (papilloma virii as the most likely candidates), which then cause problems with cell division and result in malignant growths.



The problem is that since "tobacco" has been ruled as a "carcinogen" and therefore deemed to be *THE* CAUSE -- even without any truly scientific understanding of an underlying "mechanism" (beyond the tautological labeling of it as "carcinogenic") -- research into OTHER causes is politically incorrect and therefore unfunded and unwanted. 

*In other words, BECAUSE they are positive they have caught the "culprit" --* even though they only have circumstantial evidence* -- the "investigators" have virtually ceased to look at any other potential suspects,* and instead are concentrating their efforts at finding additional "evidence" *because they NEED (psychologically) to convict the "suspect" that they WANT to be guilty!* It's the only "politically correct" course of action for both the cancer-research funding agencies, AND the government as well. (If they were proven wrong after all these decades... well, that would be MOST embarrassing.)

As the noted microbial biologist Paul W. Ewald states**, the current situation with cancer (and heart disease and other "chronic" diseases) is very similar to where the "state of the medical arts" were with ulcers *for decades*. 

Doctors were "convinced" that the cause of _chronic gastritis_ and _peptic ulcers_ was a combination of "risk factors" including stress, coffee-drinking, smoking, alcohol consumption, and even the eating of spicy foods; and thus they blamed the behaviors of patients, chastising them for their "bad habits" as the cause of their condition. *Problem is that the REAL cause of such ulcers was* _Helicobacter pylori_* -- a bacteria -- and which can be identified via simple labs tests, and then fully cured with standard (and fairly simple) course of antibiotics.* Yet despite DIRECT evidence from several studies (fulfilling Koch's postulates even), it took over TWO DECADES for the medical community at large to accept this FACT (and indeed there are still some older general practitioners who even today remain unaware and still "nag" their patients). 

*Significant portions of the medical profession are just plain old "dogmatic" -- and once they have been "indoctrinated" with certain information in medical school, they remain convinced of it until their dying day (in direct contradiction to any evidence to the contrary).*

Keep in mind that it took more than a GENERATION of doctors to die and be replaced by newly trained physicians before they accepted Semmelweis' recommended sanitary practices bases on his evidence of doctor-transmitted infections (the basis of the orginal "germ theory" -- previous to which doctors blamed vague "miasmas" and "risk factors", which conveniently enough, excluded their own actions as a factor).

*Long story short -- you want to avoid cancer? 
Then avoid getting STD's (including mono and other virii normally NOT considered as STD's) -- and that means DO NOT engage in promiscuous sex of ANY kind!* (And avoid partnering with anyone who has previously been promiscuous!)

*Seriously, THAT is where the risk is.*

** page 54, 55, _"Plague Time: The New Germ Theory of Disease"_ by Paul W. Ewald (ISBN 0-385-72184-6)

----------


## newyearsrevolution08

that is some wild $#@! indeed.

----------


## WRellim

> that is some wild $#@! indeed.


*Nothing "wild" about it... just go do some Google digging on "oncoviruses" or the various cancers... some careful reading and you'll start to glimpse the truth between the lines.*

And if you pick up Paul Ewald's excellent book -- written for laymen and easy to understand -- you will have your eyes TRULY opened about the "medical-industrial-research" complex, and how little it actually has to do with either your current OR your future well being.  

* In short, on everything from ulcers to heart disease to diabetes to cancer -- you've been lied to your whole life by the government AND the medical industry (which shouldn't really surprise you).*

Science IS advancing... but alas, science and medicine have very little to do with each other (and beyond an increasing expertise in the fine art of cutting people up, the vast majority of medicine is little more advanced than it was two hundred years ago when they "bled" people in order to try to cure them).

Oh, and (despite your doctor's statements to the contrary) most vaccines really aren't worth squat. 


Have a source of clean waterMake sure you wipe your backside properly (wash your hands thoroughly afterwards)Try your best NOT to shake people's hands (and if you have to, find an excuse to wash your hands thoroughly ASAP).Avoid contact with snotty little children, their parents and/or caretakersAND stay as far away as you can from the primary source of MRSA/VRSA -- hospitals and health clubs -- and if you MUST visit someone sick then avoid touching anything there, keep a spray of disinfectant in your car (to spray your shoes & a quick "fog" of your clothing before getting in the car).Do those things, and you will avoid the vast majority of colds AND diseases.
And obviously, don't be promiscuous.

Follow those simple things and you'll live an essentially disease-free life.


If you add to that avoiding eating too many carbs (eggs, meats and fats are better for you... ask Atkins), and then if you stay away from the worst "stress-carriers" in your job and family... then you'll also live a much longer and happier life!

----------


## newyearsrevolution08

> *Nothing "wild" about it... just go do some Google digging on "oncoviruses" or the various cancers... some careful reading and you'll start to glimpse the truth between the lines.*
> 
> And if you pick up Paul Ewald's excellent book -- written for laymen and easy to understand -- you will have your eyes TRULY opened about the "medical-industrial-research" complex, and how little it actually has to do with either your current OR your future well being.  
> 
> * In short, on everything from ulcers to heart disease to diabetes to cancer -- you've been lied to your whole life by the government AND the medical industry (which shouldn't really surprise you).*
> 
> Science IS advancing... but alas, science and medicine have very little to do with each other (and beyond an increasing expertise in the fine art of cutting people up, the vast majority of medicine is little more advanced than it was two hundred years ago when they "bled" people in order to try to cure them).
> 
> Oh, and (despite your doctor's statements to the contrary) most vaccines really aren't worth squat. 
> ...


I am not doubting you, I just haven't looked into this fully and am just blown away is all.

I never thought of cancer being caused by std's BUT since it is 4 in the morning, I would rather look into it further with a bit of sleep..

I get your points across the board from cigs to other herbs as well. Made plenty of sense to me indeed.

----------


## WRellim

> I am not doubting you, I just haven't looked into this fully and am just blown away is all.
> 
> I never thought of cancer being caused by std's BUT since it is 4 in the morning, I would rather look into it further with a bit of sleep..
> 
> I get your points across the board from cigs to other herbs as well. Made plenty of sense to me indeed.


I know it *IS* kinda of shocking (especially that we've all been fed so much BS about cancer over the years -- needless propaganda worries about everything from high-voltage lines to bad fish to well... just about everything BUT the real problem.)

*You can do some digging online... but seriously, the Ewald book (Plague Time) is your best starting place.*  It's been out a several years (originally published almost a decade ago) so you might even be able to borrow it from the library, or find a copy in a used bookstore.

It will really open your eyes to virtually everything health-wise. (Most of our improved "health" in the past century is NOT due to medicine, but rather to better water & sanitation -- so thank the local sewer & water guys [but don't shake their hand! ]  -- and cheaper food, although the past few decades have reversed that with too many carbs, thanks to the governments pseudo-science "food pyramid.")

And Paul Ewald (author of "Plague Time") is SOLID as a rock, science-wise -- he's shaken a LOT of things loose in the past decade, and his ideas have spurred a lot of new (albeit small scale) research.

----------


## pcosmar

> 95% of lung cancers are caused by smoking.  97% of oral and throat cancers are caused by tobacco use.


Yeah, and I can pull numbers out of my ass too.
98% of statistics are bull$#@!, 50 % of the time

That did not answer the question.
What causes cancer in fish?

Why do people that have never smoked or used ANY kind of tobacco get cancer.

It is one thing to say something may be a Contributing Factor, It is quite another to say it causes it.

----------


## newyearsrevolution08

> Yeah, and I can pull numbers out of my ass too.
> 98% of statistics are bull$#@!, 50 % of the time
> 
> That did not answer the question.
> What causes cancer in fish?
> 
> Why do people that have never smoked or used ANY kind of tobacco get cancer.
> 
> It is one thing to say something may be a Contributing Factor, It is quite another to say it causes it.


I am not asking about OTHER forms of cancer at all. If fish smoke cigarettes then your issue with fish cancer would make sense.

Check the thread title

"does naturally growing tobacco cause cancer"

----------


## tmosley

> Yeah, and I can pull numbers out of my ass too.
> 98% of statistics are bull$#@!, 50 % of the time
> 
> That did not answer the question.
> What causes cancer in fish?
> 
> Why do people that have never smoked or used ANY kind of tobacco get cancer.
> 
> It is one thing to say something may be a Contributing Factor, It is quite another to say it causes it.


Just because there are many causes for a broken leg doesn't mean that jumping off of a third floor balcony won't break your leg.  Your question (foolishly) implies either that there is only one cause for cancer, or that I said there was only one cause of cancer.  There are lots of causes for cancer.  The VAST MAJORITY of lung cancer (one of the most prevalent forms of cancer) is caused by cigarette smoke.

Nature is full of dangerous chemicals.  Just because they are there without human intervention doesn't mean they aren't dangerous.  If you think that, you should stop bothering us and go eat some mushrooms from your local forest (ie that will PROBABLY kill you).

Nature isn't kind.  Nature is neutral.  Nature can be cruel and deadly.  You have to use your mind.  If it didn't deliver some nicotine (a DEADLY chemical) into your bloodstream, would you smoke it?  Why don't you smoke a bunch of random leaves for 20+ years and see how well you do?

The fact is that a lot of the chemicals in cigarettes are there NATURALLY, and will be in organic tobacco just like they are in the commercial stuff.

Seriously, why do you want to be a slave to some plant anyways?  It doesn't even make you feel that good.

----------


## JeNNiF00F00

lol dont be a slave man.

----------


## pcosmar

> I am not asking about OTHER forms of cancer at all. If fish smoke cigarettes then your issue with fish cancer would make sense.
> 
> Check the thread title
> 
> "does naturally growing tobacco cause cancer"


And my "question" was intended to make people think rather than excepting a questionable claim.

Other forms of cancer??

Cancer exists. It occurs in every living thing on the planet.
I am NOT convinced that tobacco in form or by any growth and harvesting process " Causes Cancer".
It may be a contributing factor, along with a million other things.
But to say it CAUSES cancer is misinformation.

----------


## newyearsrevolution08

> And my "question" was intended to make people think rather than excepting a questionable claim.
> 
> Other forms of cancer??
> 
> Cancer exists. It occurs in every living thing on the planet.
> I am NOT convinced that tobacco in form or by any growth and harvesting process " Causes Cancer".
> It may be a contributing factor, along with a million other things.
> But to say it CAUSES cancer is misinformation.


I agree, but just trying to mainly answer the question or hope someone actually has the answer because the ONLY reason I stopped smoking cigs was so I could be around for my son. I assumed smoking and the bull$#@! they put in those cigs is what would cause cancer AND if I could grow a tobacco plant myself and smoke my own tobacco and NOT get cancer from it then I want to get on that NOW lol.

Many things that I personally do not know about others may have already researched and have scientific and medical facts backing them.

I miss the smokes is all BUT do believe that the crap they toss in the smokes DOES contribute to cancer and other issues and not simply the "smoke" itself and if that is the case then naturally grown, dried and cured tobacco should be pretty much harmless to me minus the "smoke in the lungs".

----------


## pcosmar

I am not sure.
I suppose I got Caught up in the "causes Cancer" part of the question. It irks me.

I have looked into growing my own, not from a health reason, but an economic one. I hate paying the taxes on it. 
I have quit twice in my life and returned to smoking because I enjoy tobacco.
I really prefer good cigars, but can't afford them, I currently roll my own.

I am looking into what I can grow in this area, Poor soil(mostly clay)and a short growing season.
Might switch to a pipe.

----------


## krazy kaju

Here is one article about naturally grown tobacco.

Also, this.

----------


## tmosley

Tobacco smoke contains mutagens.  Mutagens cause DNA damage.  DNA damage causes improper protein expression.  Improper protein expression causes all kinds of effects, a major one being the interruption of apoptosis, which means that cells don't kill themselves properly.  A group cell that doesn't kill itself properly is a tumor.  Further DNA damage will give the cells the ability to spread through other tissues, leading to the disease we know as cancer.

So yes, tobacco smoke CAUSES cancer (as do many other things).  Don't try to mince scientific terminology with a scientist.  I work with cancer along with many other diseases.  Our lab group is working on curing all of them.  I know what I am talking about.

Sorry to keep beating this, but I don't want you going out and getting yourself sick or dead because you think that organic==good.  Organic snake venom will kill you just the same as normal snake venom.  Tobacco isn't any different.

----------


## Anti Federalist

I ordered some tobacco seeds just last week. 

Curious to see how they make out in the NH climate.

+1 and a QFT for WRellim's posts in this thread.

----------


## newyearsrevolution08

Well either way I think if I grow my own it will be MORE healthy then commercial either way. Plus I could die tomorrow of something else so why not grow my own, well if I was dead I guess I couldn't but my meaning lifes to short to worry about what could kill yah I guess.

 there are a ton of different varieties as well.

Any suggestions on what strain to go with? Anyone breed their own? I wonder if you can cross various versions and so on. This will be a fun project.

Is it illegal to sell home grown tobacco? I assume yes but if so wonder what the charge would be with the whole tobacco tax stamp and so on.

----------


## Dustancostine

Well I am not sure what this means but here are two following examples:

My wife is from the Dominican Republic where a lot of cigar tobacco is grown and rolled. It is mostly organic, it grows like a weed there. Her great grandmother smoked cigars from the time she was a kid until she quit when she was in her 80's (60+ years of smoking) and then died at 104.

Also saw a documentary where Compay Segundo (Cuban musician) said he started smoking cigars when he was 8 years old, he continued smoking every day until he died at 95 (Thats 87 years of smoking).

Now I am sure cigarettes are deadly with the crap they put in them. But the above is a lot of smoking with no cancer. I can't explain it.

----------


## Lode

This sure is an old thread. But the topic is still alive for many of us. Just see what is going on on fora for e-cigarette vapors these days. E-vaping is hot, and increasing.

Until about a 10 days ago I used to smoke from 12 to 15 cigarettes a day. Marlboro Lights. Then I started vaping, and now I see no more than 5 cigarette butts in my ashtray the next morning before I empty it in the trash can. Less than 1/2 to 1/3 of what only so recently I still smoked.   

I leave the butts in the ashtray overnight on purpose so I can see next morning that I really smoked much less the previous day than I did before I started vaping. I'm still surprised that it didn't really cost me any effort or trying. And but a few day ago to my surprise I noticed only 7 butts in the ashtray after a whole day, and could hardly believe my eyes. But that's even diminishing.

I got my sister interested in this vaping business at the same time I started as she also smoked. She made a little effort, forcing herself to take a few drags of e-liquid instead of a cigarette, and hasn't smoked for about 10 days at all now. She told me to just take some drags of vape whenever I feel the desire to smoke, but to smoke whenever I feel a stronger desire for that than for vaping. And that is what I've been doing. 

I don't make any effort to quit smoking; I just light one up whenever I strongly feel the desire for it. But I've noticed that if I take a few drags of vape a little time before I would normally smoke -about once every hour- that postpones the craving for a cigarette. Without noticing any withdrawal symptoms I now most of the time vape instead of smoke. And I now often prefer to take a few drags of vape to lighting up an analogue. 

I started smoking some 40 years ago, with a interruption once of 5 years, and later once for about 1/2 year. I've many times made an effort to quit, and felt guilty for failing. Even hating myself for the habit. The funny thing is that lately -before vaping- I didn't feel that guilty for it anymore. I identified less with being a smoker. But that is a spiritual matter.

I now feel that I'll never get back to smoking only tobacco anymore. I don't know if I will continue to feel a preference for tobacco those times I still do now during the day, but in any case vaping makes me smoke less, I have the experience of that already. And I'm glad about that. Especially taking this into account:

"Smoking and cancer: What's in a cigarette?" (Note that nicotine is not on the list of cancer causing agents.)
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/canc...sinacigarette/ 

As for " Tobacco cigarette vs e-cigarette nicotine equivalency"
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/for...uivalency.html

----------


## Suzu

Cancer, regardless whether it's a virus or something else, cannot thrive in an alkaline environment. Smoking helps to maintain an alkaline environment in the body, so it cannot be the cause of cancer. But it can aggravate the conditions under which cancer can develop. 

It works like this: Healthy lungs have a self-cleaning mechanism. That self-cleaning mechanism becomes clogged by mucus when a person consumes mucus-forming substances. The #1 mucus producer is dairy products. Anyone who consumes dairy products has a load of mucus in the body, including the lungs, because the human body is not designed to digest the milk of different species (nor that of its own species, once the digestive system has matured enough to process adult food). The undigestible elements have nowhere to go once the liver and kidneys become too clogged with mucus to process any more. 

Tobacco smoke, along with any nasty substances it was treated and/or grown with, becomes stuck in the mucus which lines the lungs of dairy consumers. Other airborne pollutants like auto exhaust, dust, mold, pollen, etc. also stick to the mucus, and the various combinations of chemicals damage the tissues and enable disease to begin taking hold.

So, the use of dairy products is the root cause of lung problems. In the presence of mucus in the lungs, tobacco smoke and other inhaled substances will exacerbate any disease condition already in progress.

----------


## Suzu

Switching from smoking to vaping calls to mind the idea of going from heroin use to methadone.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No, I don't think naturally growing tobacco causes cancer at the rates we are seeing. 
> 
> I would say at least 9 out of 10 people who get cancer from cigs get it from the fertilizers they use, which creates a dust that sticks to the tobacco, and also from exhaust emitted from the heating equipment during the curing process. 
> 
> I think it's illegal to grow your own tobacco.
> 
> If you have to smoke, go for the American Spirits.. organic if possible. I still don't recommend smoking tobacco, though, because people tend to really suck them down. I found it is pretty addictive stuff. 
> 
> Another option is to get DRUM rolling tobacco and roll your own. You won't smoke as many cigs because you have to go through the effort of rolling them. I dunno if their tobacco is more pure than the commercial stuff, but it sure does taste better.


Aren't you forgetting to mention additives?  I thought that was the worst stuff in cigarettes, the stuff that the put inside, and not just the fertilizer for growing it.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Fish don't smoke. (well unless you smoke fish, but that is another discussion)
> Fish get cancer.
> If smoking *causes* cancer, How do fish get cancer?
> 
> Why do some people who smoke tobacco, not get cancer?
> 
> Please explain. 
> 
> Cause?
> ...


Are you seriously asking how fish get cancer without smoking?  

Nobody said smoking was the only thing that ever caused cancer.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

I smoke the organic (Teal) American Spirits with zero additives.  I am under no illusions that they won't cause cancer, but I do believe they are less harmful than the ones they add chemicals to.  Any time you have 'combustion products' whatsoever there are going to be some carcinogens, but the carcinogen volume is less when they don't add ammonia and formaldehyde though.

I also smoke these at a much slower rate than "normal" cigarettes.  A normal cigarette I may be at a pack a day, the Teal American Spirits it usually takes me 3 days to go through a pack, so there is another factor that reduces my carcinogen intake.

So taking the two combined, I am around 80% less at risk for lung cancer from these than I would be with say Marlboro Reds.  66% because I smoke that much less, and I'll say another 15-20% because the no-additive organic tobacco produces fewer (note I did not say 'none') carcinogens than the ones with all the chemical additives.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Well either way I think if I grow my own it will be MORE healthy then commercial either way. Plus I could die tomorrow of something else so why not grow my own, well if I was dead I guess I couldn't but my meaning lifes to short to worry about what could kill yah I guess.
> 
>  there are a ton of different varieties as well.
> 
> Any suggestions on what strain to go with? Anyone breed their own? I wonder if you can cross various versions and so on. This will be a fun project.
> 
> Is it illegal to sell home grown tobacco? I assume yes but if so wonder what the charge would be with the whole tobacco tax stamp and so on.


That's a really short-sighted way to think about death.  If you smoke, it shortens your life, plus it lowers your quality of life.  At least to my experience, the least happy people I know are the ones who don't get any exercise and smoke.  Smoking undoubtedly has an effect on your lungs and your cardiovascular system, making you slower and weaker all the time, plus it contributes to the destruction of your taste buds so your sense of taste is somewhat dulled. 

One myth that seems to be alive and well on these fora is that smoking makes you die earlier, simply cutting off the most miserable years of your life in which you are in the hospital on a respirator.  That is completely false.  What it really does is make those years come sooner and probably cause more suffering.  To me, living life to the fullest is about having all your natural body's abilities and being able to bike, swim, run, jump and play without huffing and puffing.  It's not about being a human chimney.  What satisfaction does that really bring you?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Well I am not sure what this means but here are two following examples:
> 
> My wife is from the Dominican Republic where a lot of cigar tobacco is grown and rolled. It is mostly organic, it grows like a weed there. Her great grandmother smoked cigars from the time she was a kid until she quit when she was in her 80's (60+ years of smoking) and then died at 104.
> 
> Also saw a documentary where Compay Segundo (Cuban musician) said he started smoking cigars when he was 8 years old, he continued smoking every day until he died at 95 (Thats 87 years of smoking).
> 
> Now I am sure cigarettes are deadly with the crap they put in them. But the above is a lot of smoking with no cancer. I can't explain it.


Cigars don't have the harmful additives that cigarettes do.  I wouldn't have nearly the aversion to enjoying a cigar once in a while that I do to cigarettes.  In my experience they are also much less unpleasant for non-smokers to be around.

----------


## Lode

Not all of us how it feels to be addicted to a particular substance like nicotine. Only those of us who for one reason or another once started the addiction know how that feels like. Once addicterd many of us would like to return to the state we enjoyed before we got into the addiction, but somehow experience not being able to get back to that state of normalcy. Or if we do get to quit, later fall back into the habit again. 

In the mean time I've hardly smoked for the last few weeks. At the most 2 cigarettes a day, some days only 1, and some even 0. Instead I vape now and then during the day. And I'm glad to know this way I avoid all the chemicals added to cigarettes that are listed as much worse for one's health than nicotine. It is even said that in small quantities nicotine is quite harmless, as the body breaks it down and releases it daily. Only really large doses of it are bad and can even kill the body. But we don't even come close to such a dose by smoking or vaping.

Of course I would like to enjoy being free of vaping too, and I have good hope I will be. But for now -again- I'm glad I at least don't get all those chemicals in my body.


For those among us who smoke and would like to step over to vaping, this might be of interest to you:

"How Do I Choose an E-liquid Strength?"
http://www.vapertrain.com/page/hdics

I don't know if it really makes a difference -it might be only in my imagination- but I vape the Whole Tobacco Alkaloid (WTA) kind. Besides the nicotine it also contains 5% of the tobacco alkaloid related to the nicotine. So to me it feels -and tastes- more like smoking a cigarette. Which makes it easier for me to step over from smoking to vaping. But this might not be so for everyone, as so many vape non-WTA liquids.

----------


## puppetmaster

> I started smoking when I was 13. I quit when I was 23 for a couple of years then started again. Then I quit again, started again and quit again for about 5 years. I always smoked commercial cigarettes, usually around 3/4 to a pack a day or more when I was drinking. I started smoking again last spring. 
> 
> At first I was rolling my own from American Spirit organic tobacco. I would make a little filter from a part of a cotton ball but a lot of the tarry stuff would make it through so I said the heck with it and started buying packs of Am. Spirit organic cigarettes or Nat Sherman all naturals. I light an average of 6 cigarettes a day but usually don't even finish them.
> 
> I definitely think the organic and all natural, more expensive cigarettes are less addictive.
> 
> Also, I know you can buy tobacco seeds.


The proem with American spirit "organic" or any other pre made commercial cigarette is that they are ALL are fire safe which means they contain a fire retardant which happens to be the same ingrediant as he main ingredient in carpet 
http:// http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wi...safe_cigarette


I have a machine that really produces all natural cigarettes at a rate of one per second. NO fire retardant at all.  I dont smoke but do make a bunch of smokes daily.

----------


## puppetmaster

> I smoke the organic (Teal) American Spirits with zero additives.  I am under no illusions that they won't cause cancer, but I do believe they are less harmful than the ones they add chemicals to.  Any time you have 'combustion products' whatsoever there are going to be some carcinogens, but the carcinogen volume is less when they don't add ammonia and formaldehyde though.
> 
> I also smoke these at a much slower rate than "normal" cigarettes.  A normal cigarette I may be at a pack a day, the Teal American Spirits it usually takes me 3 days to go through a pack, so there is another factor that reduces my carcinogen intake.
> 
> So taking the two combined, I am around 80% less at risk for lung cancer from these than I would be with say Marlboro Reds.  66% because I smoke that much less, and I'll say another 15-20% because the no-additive organic tobacco produces fewer (note I did not say 'none') carcinogens than the ones with all the chemical additives.


Only the tobacco has no additives. The papers are chemically treated. Read the pack it says only the tabacco is natural.

----------

