Re: smoking was: Gas/WD/milk/kombucha/sleeping

January 9, 2004

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 21:29:43 -0800

" Berg " <bberg@...> wrote:

>----- Original Message -----

>From: <slethnobotanist@...>

>> >

>> >First, glad to hear from you! Have missed the two of you.

>>

>> Nice to know I was missed by somebody!

>

>I second that. I don't know if you got the mail, but I pinged you

>off-list a month or so ago to see if you were still alive.

Hey well thanks! No I did not receive the email.

>

>> At any rate, to answer your question, no I am not quite done. It is

>> actually a rewrite of an article I did a few years back where I

>> basically said the normally stated " dogma " against smoking as being

>> unhealthy was pure baloney. That such a stance was not nearly as cut

>and

>> dried as its proponents would have you believe.

>

>I can believe that it may not be as bad as the anti-smoking lobby would

>have us believe, but from an intuitive perspective, at least, it seems

>as though inhaling large quantities of smoke should cause some

>substantial oxidative damage. Is this wrong?

As I argue in my article it is dependent on a number of factors. The

type of tobacco, how it was cured, the fertility of the soil the tobacco

was grown in, how it was processed, the amount smoked, the type of diet

consumed by the smoker, etc.

What got me started on this was years ago when I read that certain

cultures in the East considered smoking mildly healthful and not necessarily

a poison in the diet.

I will post some articles/studies in the near future, but is very

difficult to get some real science on this topic. It is a lot like the

cholesterol issue was/is, much of the mainstream is very opposed to any

evidence that might contradict the current mantra.

Stupid Vogue

Recommended Posts