• Select Your Topic Then Scroll Down
    Alcohol Bupe Benzos
    Cocaine Heroin Opioids
    RCs Stimulants Misc
    Harm Reduction All Topics Gabapentinoids
    Tired of your habit? Struggling to cope?
    Want to regain control or get sober?
    Visit our Recovery Support Forums

Most addictive substance? (your opinion)

he may have exaggerated a few points, but for the most part seems like he did his research


so mr. cream, i ask you... do you smoke lots of meth?
 
What are you talking about klowns, Your whole post just sounds like technicalities to get around the fact that smoking cigarettes will kill you.

Yes it may not "cause" lung cancer, but denying it increases your likely hood to get lung cancer is just ignorant. a US white male cigarette smoker has an 8% lifetime chance of dying from lung cancer but the nonsmoker also has a 1% chance of dying from lung cancer. There are also hundreds of other ways cigarettes negatively impact your life. The high is shit, The drug is a pointless, waste of time.

Why are you discussion tobacco? People here don't harvest and smoke their own tobacco. Fact is when people say Tobacco they are referring to the commercial cigarette packets you can buy at your cornershop.

About the addiction, the level of severity during the WDs has nothing to do with how addictive it is. And "chain smoking for 2 weeks" would not make you a cigarette addict. Many people smoke for years, when they try to quit they're surrounded by people that smoke, it's available 24/7 - cheap. All people I've known to quit cigarettes still say they crave it every day, even after 20 years without one.
 
taken from Failing of the Disease Model of Addiction
GIO BATTA GORI
The Health Policy Center, 6704 Barr Road, Bethesda, MD 20816, USA

In an effort to discourage cigarette smoking, the US Surgeon General in 1988 declared that - behaviourally - cigarette smokers are on the same level as heroin or cocaine addicts. On the face of it, this incredible assertion defies common sense because the daily experience of everyone tells that smokers and hard-drug addicts are not the same people. In effect, the Surgeon General trivialized the pejorative behavioural connotations of heroin and cocaine addiction. Could anyone show that cigarette smoking comports such an extreme a behaviour as heroin and cocaine addiction? Should we invent other words for substance abuses with true objectionable sequelae, when common language itself separates different habits in different categories of intensity? In the context of fair policies we should rather demand a precise use of definitions and language, insisting that if a generic 'addiction' attribute is to be used ubiquitously, then its intensity should be graded in each instance. Official precedent recognizes this need, implicit in the legal distinction of a 100:1 ratio for the addictive power of crack versus powdered cocaine (US Code). By all measurable evidence, if cigarette smoking - or chocolate craving, for that matter - is to be called addictive, it should be accorded a comparatively more extreme reduction of intensity when compared to powdered cocaine.

An explicit gradient of intensity is apparent in the definitions of 'addiction' and 'habit' advanced by the healing professions. In fact, the World Health Organization has characterized smoking as a habit, not an 'addiction', and even statements by previous Surgeon Generals in the US also qualified smoking as a habit. For instance, the original 1964 Surgeon General's report reads:

====== `The tobacco habit should be characterized as an habituation rather than an addiction, in conformity with accepted World Health Organization definitions, since once established there is little tendency to increase the dose; psychic but not physical dependence is developed ... No characteristic abstinence syndrome is developed upon withdrawal ... Discontinuation of smoking ... is accomplished best by reinforcing factors which interrupt the psychogenic drives. Nicotine substitutes or supplementary medication have not been proven of major benefit in breaking the habit' (USSG, 1964, p. 354).`The overwhelming evidence points to the conclusion that smoking - its beginning, habituation, and occasional discontinuation- is to a large extent psychologically and socially determined' (USSG,1964 p. 40).

To smokers, smoking is pleasant in many ways and therefore it could be expected to be mildly reinforcing as any pleasant experience tends to be.There is no good evidence of tolerance in smokers. A certain dose is attained early when people start smoking and that dose is not exceeded because exceeding it makes smoking unpleasant. Uncontrollable, compulsive use is not apparent in smokers: the Surgeon General acknowledges that over 40 million smokers quit on their own in the United State alone, in a climate where cigarettes are legally and readily available. The all important qualifier of psychotoxicity is absent in smokers. Finally, there is no evidence of physical dependence: withdrawal symptoms are usually absent, transient and mild at best when present, and less noticeable than the withdrawal symptoms experienced by people on strict diets. Jack Henningfield, a principal architect of the US Surgeon General's claim of smoking 'addiction', himself wrote a few years ago that:

====== 'The following constraints and inconsistencies should be noted when considering the evidence for a tobacco withdrawal syndrome. First, a syndrome of reliable physiologic signs. .. has not been described ... [W]ith the exception of the desire to smoke ... other phenomena typically occur only in a fraction of all subjects abstinent from cigarettes ...For instance... weight gain, gastrointestinal disturbances, or anxiety may each occur in less than one-third of all subjects; and up to one-half of abstinent subjects may report no symptoms at all.

The second major issue is that while tobacco withdrawal is commonly equated with nicotine withdrawal, there is little evidence that nicotine produces physiologic dependence ... Administration of nicotine-receptor antagonists...has not been shown to evoke a withdrawal syndrome...[P]roviding abstinent smokers with a nicotine-containing chewing gum only partially attenuates physical complaints...[and] in animal studies, abrupt abstinence is not followed by... a withdrawal syndrome. These inconsistencies...impose constraints on the comparison...of tobacco withdrawal with that of withdrawal from epodes, sedatives, and ethanol . . The relevance of this point goes beyond semantic issues of classification ... [because] when withdrawal is considered in the context of drug dependence it generally connotes a more narrowly specified set of conditions (viz. a reliable syndrome of behavioural and physiologic changes)' (Henningfield,1984, pp. 147-148).

Such a statement amounts to an admission that- by comparison to withdrawal from hard-drug abuse - smoking withdrawal simply does not exist. Most smokers quit without consequence whatsoever. A few may experience some discomforts that quickly disappear spontaneously or are curable by the mildest intervention. Severe cases are said to exist, but are undocumented in the scientific literature, even at the anecdotal level. If anything, it can be argued that at present smokers may be somewhat less comfortable about quitting because the 'addiction' label and the proliferation of cessation clinics and devices makes them think - consciously or not - that quitting has become a difficult ordeal- a view supported by prominent anti-smoking advocates (Chapman, 1995).

Smoking may be a habit comporting some risks, but does not qualify as 'addiction' under the terms discussed above. In fact, if persistent abuse of hard-drugs exemplifies the 'uncontrollable excess' that includes psychotoxicity, severe withdrawal, and loss of volition - then the use of the term in connection with smoking is improper, loses force and impact, and must descend at the level of a habit, as earlier Surgeon Generals in the US have recognized (USSG, 1964). Other than in jest, 'addiction' cannot apply to common pleasant habits, without generating semantic confusion.
 
Carbon monoxide is a by-product of tobacco smoke. A report indicates very low levels of carbon monoxide may help victims of heart attacks and strokes. Carbon monoxide inhibits blood clotting, thereby dissolving harmful clots in the arteries. The researchers focused on carbon monoxide's close resemblance to nitric oxide which keeps blood vessels from dilating and prevents the buildup of white blood cells. "Recently nitric oxide has been elevated from a common air pollutant . . . to an [internal] second messenger of utmost physiological importance. Therefore, many of us may not be entirely surprised to learn that carbon monoxide can paradoxically rescue the lung from [cardiovascular blockage] injury." The pharmacological benefits of tobacco are nothing new.

SMOKERS DIE "EARLY"...

While this cannot really be considered scientific evidence, it is a fact nevertheless.

The oldest people on Earth are all smokers.

According to the World Health Organization and the statisticians of the anti-tobacco cartel, however, these are (or will be) all premature deaths, for the simple reason that they are smokers. Therefore, these individuals did (or will) add to the smoking-related death epidemic figures that the charlatans of the numerous anti-tobacco organizations keep waving in front of politicians, media, and public.

FORCES wishes to thank Wanda Hamilton for her usual, meticulously accurate work.
WORLD'S OLDEST -- ALL SMOKERS
(Original compilation by Wanda Hamilton)


The Big 115: another ancient smoker has a birthday party - August 28, 2006 -A reader tipped us off to this story of the ex-smoker, never-drinker who was already six when the U.S. seized Puerto Rico from Spain in 1898. "I never damaged my body with liquor," said Mercado, who quit a 76-year smoking habit when he was 90. Happy birthday, Mr. Mercado del Toro!

The tobacco death toll - February 26, 2003 - Mercilessly, tobacco keeps harvesting an endless number of premature victims. Day after day millions of cigarettes are produced by criminals who KNOW that each and every one of their customers will DIE – and there is no escape, and no more unquestionable truth: if you smoke, you die. This is the case of the late John McMorran, of Lakeland, Florida. He smoked cigars, drank beer and ate greasy food –and now he has paid the dear price for a life turned that stands as an insult to the health crusaders. John was born June 19, 1889, in a log cabin in Michigan, and he was the oldest American living – but he could have lived longer. And that is not all; it is well known that smoking causes blindness and ear problems. In fact, “McMorran's eyesight failed in his final years, and people needed to shout for him to hear them.” What a waste. This is what tobacco does to you. May this epitaph stand as warning to the young, so that they learn to NEVER make John’s mistakes, and turn into statistical deaths.

The Italian Massacre - February 26, 2003 - In the meantime, we get a full dimension of what tobacco does to people in other countries as well. The Italian daily “Libero” has just reported updates on the Tobacco Massacre of Milan last February 6th. Out of a population of 2.2 million in that city, there are 646 people whose lives will, inevitably, be cut short – shortly after they turn 100. Two of them are already 110, five are 109 and 12 are 106. Another 217 are only 100, 167 just turned 101, and 115 are 102. But that’s not over. Over 35,000 Milanese are in the age range between 85 and 94, and another 92,000 are between 75 and 84. You can see them in the polluted Italian city with their dogs, in the typical little bars, indulging in despicable habits such as coffee, grease-filled brioches, alcohol and – worst of all – smoking Tuscan cigars that stink more than any diesel tailpipe, poisoning their peers. Some of them even “do” cigarettes, having indulged in the deadly habit for over 94 years. Imagine how dirty their lungs are. According to the daily, in fact, the overwhelming majority of these people either smokes, drinks, or eats fatty foods. Most even do it all. No wonder the heroic health authorities must intervene to stop the carnage. It’s either now or never!

Tobacco Claims Two More - The Philippines lost one of that country's most prolific and beloved composers and lyricists. Levi Celerio, who wrote the lyrics for more than 4,000 folk, Christmas and love songs, died after a bout of emphysema. Obituaries noted that Mr. Celerio was a chain smoker. He was 91. He is survived by his third wife and the 12 children he managed to father despite the impotence caused by tobacco. From the other side of the world, the United Kingdom morns the death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother. The mother of Queen Elizabeth II, the Queen Mother was a bon vivant who loved horse racing, gin cocktails and, sadly, cigarettes. It was the latter, the beastly coffin nails, that did her in. She was 101 years old.

Television Pioneer's Life Cut Short - "His trademark cigar rarely left his hand. In an interview two years ago, Berle said he'd smoked cigars since he was 12. "I figure if George Burns can smoke 20 cigars a day his whole life and live to be 100, why should I worry if they're bad for me?" We note the passing of Milton Berle with sadness and anger at a creative life cut short by excessive tobacco use. Mr. Berle died Wednesday from colon cancer. He was 93.

Smoking Kills Famous Director - Succumbing to a life time of smoking, Hollywood director Billy Wilder died Wednesday at the age of 95. The 6-time Oscar winner directed such classics as "Some Like It Hot" and "Sunset Boulevard". His 1955 movie "The Seven Year Itch" made a contemporary icon of Marilyn Monroe's pose over a New York subway vent. The premature deaths of these two well-known victims of tobacco give added urgency to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's campaign to eliminate smoking from movies. Once smoking is banished from the silver screen, the focus can be shifted to the people who make and star in the movies the movies. The carnage must be halted.

Television Pioneer's Life Cut Short - "His trademark cigar rarely left his hand. In an interview two years ago, Berle said he'd smoked cigars since he was 12. "I figure if George Burns can smoke 20 cigars a day his whole life and live to be 100, why should I worry if they're bad for me?" We note the passing of Milton Berle with sadness and anger at a creative life cut short by excessive tobacco use. Mr. Berle died Wednesday from colon cancer. He was 93.

Gregorio Fuentes - Cut Down By Tobacco Before His Time - Gregorio Fuentes, who skippered Ernest Hemingway's fabled fishing boat, the Pilar, for more than 20 years and is said to have been the writer's inspiration for the embattled fisherman in "The Old Man and the Sea," has died. He was 104. Fuentes died of cancer Sunday at his home in Cojimar, the quiet Cuban fishing village about 10 miles east of Havana where Hemingway used to dock the Pilar. Smoking until the end, Fuentes is sad proof that tobacco kills.

John Berry - John Berry, a rugged-faced pipe smoker, a stage and movie director, writer and actor who made more than 50 films and, entangled in the blacklist, exiled himself from Hollywood during the anti-Communist inquests of the 1950s, died Nov. 29, 1999 at his home in Paris. He was 82. Another premature, tobacco-related death, no doubt. We are not kidding. Every smoker who dies is logged as a tobacco-related death to beef up mortality statistics and imply that those who don't smoke are either immortal, or live much longer lives. And when they die (…sorry, IF they die) they are not logged as a tobacco-related deaths even if they died of the identical diseases of smokers. … How else do you think that the anti-tobacco cartel builds up its statistical garbage about the "smoking epidemic?"

Isabella Gibson ready to celebrate her 99th - Another smoker approaches one century of life. Gambling, smoking, and enjoying life does not seem to have cut short the life of this person, though she will certainly be logged as yet another "premature, tobacco-related death" by the crooked statistics desing to create numbers proving the Lie of the Century. Isabella seems to be still in good health, notwithstanding osteoporosis (smoking-related, no doubt). Happy birthday, Isabella -- and keep on smokin'!

Wencelao Moreno: another victim bites the dust - It's with extreme sadness that we report the sad demise of Wencelao Moreno of a smoking related illness. Mr. Moreno, better known as "Senor Wences" of the "Ed Sullivan Show" was 103. During the benighted era when ash resided in ash trays rather than dictating policy in Washington, Senor Wences joked, drank and smoked with his puppets on T.V. All his puppets died of secondhand smoke decades ago. Although his premature passing is sad, his death is warning to us all that smoking kills.

Mme Jeanne Calment, who was listed as the world's oldest human whose birth date could be certified, died at 122. She had begun smoking as a young woman. At 117 she quit smoking (by that age she was just smoking two or three cigarettes per day because she was blind and was too proud to ask often for someone to light her cigarettes for her). But she resumed smoking when she was 118 because, as she said, not smoking made her miserable and she was too old to be made miserable. She also said to her doctor: "Once you've lived as long as me, only then can you tell me not to smoke." Good point! [USA Today, "Way to go, champ," 10/18/95].

When Mme. Calment died at 122 in l997, the new longevity champ became 116-year-old Marie-Louise Meilleur, of Canada. Mme. Meilleur had chain-smoked all her adult life (as her grandson said, "She always had a cigarette dangling from her lips as she worked,"--AP, 8/15/97, reported in Miami Herald, p. 2A). She did give up smoking, however, when she was nearly 100.

The world's oldest man is (unless he has died since the last report I have, which is l997) Christian Mortensen, ll4 in l997,who has been a cigar smoker for most of his life--and still smokes them. [San Francisco Chronicle, "114 and Still Smoking," Peter Fimrite, 8/5/97, p.A13].

Britain's oldest man, George Cook, died at 108 in his sleep in September, l997. He "smoked heavily for 85 years before giving up tobacco at the age of 97," ("World Briefs," Houston Chronicle, 9/29/97).

The Scottish Daily Record (12/15/97) reported on Ivy Leighton, 100, who smoked 20 cigarettes a day for 84 years, but cut down somewhat after her 100th birthday. April claimed smoking was the key to her long life.

There are two men who claim to be the world's oldest living humans, but their birth dates cannot be certified. One is Ali Mohammed Hussein, who claimed to be 135, of Lebanon. He "smokes like a chimney," but does not drink alcohol [CNN World News, "Born in l862," Brent Sadler, 5/13/l997].

The title is also claimed by Narayan Chaudhari, a Nepalese man who says he is 141. However, his birth date also cannot be certified. He too is a heavy smoker and says the secret of his longevity is "raw tobacco and no alcohol." [Nando net, Agence France-Press, "Nepalese man claims to be 141, which would make him world's oldest", 2/12/98].

-Smoking causes cancer. Absolutely. Positively. There must be no doubt whatsoever about that. It is proven. That statement, along with the biblical multiplication of the statistical fish concerning “tobacco-related” death and disease is now the ritual, idiotic opening or closing line of most articles about smoking (even many anti-prohibition ones). Without it, the article is "not worth reading" – because it is not "believable" – so the holy bible of superstition must be ritually kissed as a sign of submission to the credo before opening any issue on smoking. Smoking causes cancer. Any study to the contrary must be thoroughly investigated -- to check if the grandpa of one of the researchers just happened to work for a tobacco farmer, so that the study can be discredited on those grounds. If the search turns out to be negative, then the study must be utterly ignored. There can be no heresy: smoking causes cancer – never forget that, in any of your waking hours – rather, dream about it too. No matter how many studies cannot prove it – those are worth nothing. Instead, consider only those which corroborate what you must believe -- to be considered intelligent, bright, modern, healthy, and educated. Knowledge is dangerous: you do not know that not even one of the millions of “tobacco-related” statistical deaths can be proven to be caused uniquely by smoking – and God forbid that the thought that it's impossible even to calculate the contribution of smoking to one single death or disease (thus the “social cost”) crosses your mind. There ARE millions and millions of deaths – there are! -- to scare smokers with, because smoking is bad, bad, BAD. And since the high priests of junk science (sorry: "public health") cannot make an act of (real) science, you must make an act of faith in their holy words for your own good – rather, a leap of faith – or you will be punished, and you’ll suffer from a horrible, horrible tax (and death). Amen.
 
dude, do you fucking resarch before you try and argue with me.
 
Why? It's the equivalent of me arguing against someone saying the Holocaust didn't happen

klowns said:
you obviously dont know shit, and you are ignorant. no, there IS NO LINK between smoking and cancer. find one for me, and then ill believe you. find one for me that doesnt come from the anti-smoking nazis, some real scientific info, and then ill believe you. because what has been found is that smoking and lung cancer have no correlation. they even did this study wtih rats and even after exposing them to mass amounts of tobacco smoke for a LONG period of time, not one of them developed a lung tumor. ever heard of anyon dying from smoking cannabis??? NO. thats because its never happened.
klowns said:
Smoking causes cancer. Absolutely. Positively. There must be no doubt whatsoever about that. It is proven.

Contradictory, aren't you? Do you even read this shit you post? You sound like some kid thats spent to much time on some idiots web-blog.
 
snowballs, doing crack and smack in what hit, last year went through a faze of doing this then stopped, dreamed about it every day for about a month afterwoods, just totaly haunted me !
 
zigzag| dta said:
he may have exaggerated a few points, but for the most part seems like he did his research


so mr. cream, i ask you... do you smoke lots of meth?
nope never done any speed
 
contradictory?!??! lmao whatever. i guess you have NO clue what sacrcasm is do you? your a complete fucking idiot. i nowhere contradicted myself. i gave you evidence and sources to back up my claims, you still have given me nothing. i dont care, go on believing what you want dumbass while the rest of the world moves on....
 
and by WHAT PART OF SARCASM DONT YOU UNDERSTAND (oh wait, none of it) iwas reffering to -this-
-Smoking causes cancer. Absolutely. Positively. There must be no doubt whatsoever about that. It is proven. That statement, along with the biblical multiplication of the statistical fish concerning “tobacco-related” death and disease is now the ritual, idiotic opening or closing line of most articles about smoking (even many anti-prohibition ones). Without it, the article is "not worth reading" – because it is not "believable" – so the holy bible of superstition must be ritually kissed as a sign of submission to the credo before opening any issue on smoking. Smoking causes cancer. Any study to the contrary must be thoroughly investigated -- to check if the grandpa of one of the researchers just happened to work for a tobacco farmer, so that the study can be discredited on those grounds. If the search turns out to be negative, then the study must be utterly ignored. There can be no heresy: smoking causes cancer – never forget that, in any of your waking hours – rather, dream about it too. No matter how many studies cannot prove it – those are worth nothing. Instead, consider only those which corroborate what you must believe -- to be considered intelligent, bright, modern, healthy, and educated. Knowledge is dangerous: you do not know that not even one of the millions of “tobacco-related” statistical deaths can be proven to be caused uniquely by smoking – and God forbid that the thought that it's impossible even to calculate the contribution of smoking to one single death or disease (thus the “social cost”) crosses your mind. There ARE millions and millions of deaths – there are! -- to scare smokers with, because smoking is bad, bad, BAD. And since the high priests of junk science (sorry: "public health") cannot make an act of (real) science, you must make an act of faith in their holy words for your own good – rather, a leap of faith – or you will be punished, and you’ll suffer from a horrible, horrible tax (and death). Amen.

if you read that and honestly still believe i was contradicting myself, then there is no helping someone like you. you might as well become a cop so you can bust all those pot smokers that rape babies and eat people and give themselves lung cancer
fucking idiot
 
oh and im glad that my research doesnt count.......even though its FULL of sources. please teach me how to do resarch that counts, cause i just cant figure it out!!!!!!
oh wait. not a single one of you has yet given me ANY proof of your side of the story. no sources, no articles. nothing.
 
klowns said:
oh and im glad that my research doesnt count.......even though its FULL of sources. please teach me how to do resarch that counts, cause i just cant figure it out!!!!!!
oh wait. not a single one of you has yet given me ANY proof of your side of the story. no sources, no articles. nothing.
You really expect me to believe that last post? Yeah - I'm sure that post you made that says smoking causing cancer was sarcastic - 8)

Here are some sites you may like

http://www.stormfront.org/truth_at_last/holocaust.htm
http://truechristian.com/christianscience.html
 
WOW. you Reallly are brain dead! thats amazing! i have nothing left to say to you, beacue you wont even be able to coprehend it. holy jesus lmmfao
and those who said alcohol, i could whole heartidly agree with you
peace-
 
and what teh fuck did those sites have to do with anything. please learn to read as you must be illiterate if you HONESTLY believe that in the last part of my longer post i was TRYING to state that tobacco does kill or cause cancer. wow. i mean. completely brain dead
still no sources-just some dumb shit sites about evolution and shit
 
You're right, I won't be able to comprehend it, your posts are incomprehensible.

Are you foreign? or just prepubescent?

I can't cite any source as I am unclear to what your argument is. First you say cigarettes don't cause cancer, I prove you wrong and you say you're being 'sarcastic' then you say cigarettes aren't addictive and cite a article that only deals with the terminology.
 
Top