Subject: Re: Smoking herbs

From: [email-masked] (|||==|||)
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 08:32:55 MST

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Paul Iannone) writes:

>: i believe most of the carcinoma "tobacco" causes is not from the
>: plant, but how they store it: in sheds where they have rat poison
>: scattered on the floors and walls; curing the plants with chemicals
>: (which they deny using), instead of air drying; and from the
>: processed paper used when wrapping the tobacco into cigarette form.
>:  
>: imho, [email-masked]

>Also absurd. Why look for a needle in the haystack? Tobacco is Hot in energy,
>and sticky with Dampness. Its tars sink to the bottom of the lung like hot
>asphault, and interfere with the flow of Qi there. Once you have gummed up
>the Qi flow sufficiently, you have to smoke (for the Dispersing effect of
>tobacco) to have anything like normal Qi flow, but this of course makes the
>Hot-Damp Qi Stagnation problem worse. Depending on your reserves and on your
>body's capacity to 'route around' these hot spots, you develop cancer when
>the cells in the area cannot receive Qi the way they are accustomed, and
>instead receive Toxic Qi that has become a brooding Evil in any case, ready
>to cause disease. Those cells eventually begin to behave strangely, as you
>have long been doing, inspiring burning herbal gases and tars into your very
>delicate lungs.

>--Paul  ||  [email-masked]
>--

I agree Paul.  I smoked both ultra-light tobacco and "herbals" for a short 
time in my young life and none of it is any good for you.  The burning and 
smoke; the heat.  It all damages the lungs and can bring on headaches, etc.  
Best bet is to try and live without them, which is no problem for me 
because I just remember to myself that I don't want to die that way, ie 
suffocating.		-DDR

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 12 Sep 1995 02:49:18 GMT

>   [email-masked] (|||==|||) writes:
>  
>  

	As long as the smoking doesn't exceed say 'x' amount of carcinogens
then it shouldn't be a problem.  For tobacco what I have read is roughly about
seven to 10 cigarettes in a week does not increase your chances of lung cancer.
Your lungs can repair any damage done to them at this level of use.   The reason
for this is that your body is already correcting mutations that happen with the cells
all over your body every day.  It can also correct the damage lung cells and repair
them.  It is only when the amount of carcinogens exceed your body's capability to
deal with them that problems arise.   Studies that show increases in lung cancer 
rates (normally it's like 50%) study levels use of that are at least a pack (20
cigarretes) a day or more.

	So while smoking herbs might not be beneficial for your lungs it doesn't do
any irreparable harm as long as you moderate your use.

Note: Don't try smoking tobacco under the false assumption that you will
be able to moderate your use. Chances are 95 out of 100 that you
will become addicted and not be able to moderate your use in any way 
shape or form. If you must smoke, use non addictive herbs like damiana,
scullcap, and wild lettuce. Better yet read the Smoking Herbs pamplet by 
Howie Braunstein.  

-Ryan

---

From: [email-masked] (New York Theosophical Society)
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 20:19:27 GMT

[email-masked] wrote:

: Note: Don't try smoking tobacco under the false assumption that you will
: be able to moderate your use. Chances are 95 out of 100 that you
: will become addicted and not be able to moderate your use in any way 
: shape or form. 

	I am one of the "lucky" 5 out of 100; I used to smoke, and can 
still smoke if I want, but never became addicted.  I started out with 
cigars, and moved on to pipes.  But I limited myself to no more than 4 in 
any given calendar month, and stuck to it.  The last time I tried a pipe 
was about 5 months ago (after not smoking for about 1 1/2 years), and 
came to the conclusion that I would have to go to about 2 times a month 
or more to enjoy smoking tobacco, and decided it would be too much 
trouble. I don't intend to smoke again unless I am prepared to go "up" to 
my old level.

	Bart Lidofsky

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 14 Sep 1995 02:30:02 GMT

>   [email-masked] (New York Theosophical Society) writes:

	Just thought I'd add another bit of information.  Interestingly enough 
not all tobacco products are created equal in terms of addictiction rates.  Apparently
smokeless products like snuff and chewing tobacco are the least addictive.  Then
comes cigars (where the smoke is rarely inhaled), and then comes pipes.  The most addictive
form of tobacco is cigarettes.  Cigarettes are easiest and fastest (theoretically anyhow) nicotine
deilvery systems.   By virtue of this fact, it is "easier" to get addicted to cigarettes than to other
similiar tobacco products.

-Ryan

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 14 Sep 1995 02:32:15 GMT

-Ryan