3 votes

I Finally Started Smoking and I'm so happy about that, says Jeff Berwick

Hello from beautiful Acapulco,

Everyone has there place and this is truly mine. I was just walking down the street with a glass of wine, smoking a cigarette and... well, actually I should mention something about that.

I finally started smoking! I'm so happy about that. I tried when I was younger but when I was in my teens and twenties I was not in very good health. As I just mentioned, everyone has their place, and when I am here... with the sun, every day of the year, it builds up your immune system immeasurably. When I lived in northern Canada, the sun was always this little white light in the distant horizon for most of the year. It'd peer down to me as though to say, "What are you doing living here?" And that's if you could even see it at all, through the clouds, rain, snow and hail. I was almost constantly sick. Even when I visit, I look around and everyone is a grey color. Here, with the sun and all the locally grown, mostly organic produce and meat, it is almost impossible to get sick. I think the last time I heard someone even cough here was never.

So, I just couldn't start smoking while I lived there. Even one cigarette felt like it was going to kill me. I've since experimented with electronic cigarettes and snus. Both had their moments but I felt like I was missing out. Smoking, of almost all activities, is hardwired into us from thousands and thousands of years of practice. I wanted to participate in that tradition. But, something has happened of late, a switch just clicked and now I am nearly a full smoker. I only tend to smoke when I drink... but that is nearly all the time anyway, so I'm good.

One of the funnest parts has been collecting all the government mandated scare propaganda on each pack. Here's just one hilarious one, just for your entertainment.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Smoke cigars

never inhale one if you can help it.They go good with whiskey,Rum or wine.Listen to cigardave.com out of Tampa Fl for cigar choices.Watch out for the pleasure police and the enemies of pleasure out there.The high taxes on tobacco and alcohol are criminal.

Money talks and dogs bark

This reminded me...

Ed Norton: Mind if I smoke?

Ralph Kramden: I don't care if you burn.

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality. - John Randolph of Roanoke

Cyril's picture

Yup. Great one :)

Yup. Great one :)

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

To quote the great Steve Martin.....

"My Doctor told me to start smoking because I wasn't getting enough tar in my system"

My buddies and smoke while

My buddies and smoke while doing Brazilian Jiu-jitsu. You have to be very careful....

I only smoke in bed!


"Oppositional Defiant Disorder"

That's what I would call this post.

Don't listen to him, kids. I would really hate for this post to negatively influence any actual adolescents or children. I have heard heroin addicts say that kicking heroin was a breeze next to trying to quit smoking. Don't start.

Lao - To some, the cigarette is a portable therapist

I'd rather my child smoke than be prescribed psychotropic medications for "depression" or because they are uncomfortable in social situations. Same goes for all the doctors prescribing amphetamines for "Attention Defict Disorder".

I'd also rather my child smoke than to drink alcohol.

People smoke for many different reasons and while there are clearly much better alternatives to smoking, smoking is not as bad as many people make it out to be. Smoking would be far less dangerous if the free market could offer cigarettes that were not regulated by the Government. The free market would demand that rolled tobacco be free of all the added chemicals that big tobacco puts in them.

If I'm not mistaken, the male marijuana plant does not produce THC so smoking it would not get you high. I love the taste and smell of marijuana but I don't like to get stoned. (I did when I was young but now it just makes me paranoid) I would love to be able to buy pot that I could roll up into cigarettes and smoke them. Its my understanding that smoking marijuana is no where near as bad for you as tobacco smoke.

Not everyone that smokes gets so addicted that they can't stop if they really want to.

My Dad smoked until he was 40 years old. He is currently 75 and does not have any smoking related issues.

People do all kinds of things that are dangerous and/or not good for them. People should be free to choose what they want to do as long as it does not interfere with someone else or cause others harm.

So many people think that the only way it can be said that you have "had a good life" is if you live until your 75 or 80 (or whatever) Some people may think that living until 65, having been able to enjoy each day in the way that they choose...even if one of those choices is smoking a cigarette every few hours is a trade off they are willing to make.

Other food for thought:

The Suicide Rate Is Highest Among the Elderly
Work Kills More People Than Smoking
Prescription Drugs Kill Over 100,000 a Year (when taken as prescribed)
For a lot of people a cigarette is the only vacation they have.
Smokers the most interesting people at the table.

Cyril's picture

In fairness, I wouldn't compare the damages caused by heroin

In fairness, I wouldn't compare the damages caused by heroin to those caused by tobacco.

The former, reportedly, downright kill your brain and can actually make you "dumber and dumber" when kept confined in the addiction, while the latter "only" kill your lungs.

However, hence the +1, I TOTALLY agree with you and the bottom line :

anyone is way better off just not starting at all. Just my sincere advice.

As far as I can tell, aware of many others experiences, it seems some people could quit smoking "easily enough".

I can tell that, too bad : still hasn't been the case on my end to this day.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Is it true that

people drive on the beach there?

Humans have been breathing

Humans have been breathing smoke, soot and ash since we discovered fire. Mankind would have never survived without fire for warmth and protection. Ventilation did not exist in caves.

Over the course of hundreds of thousands of years, humans breathed a lot of smoke. It was natural...fire was life. People gathered around the fire, breathed it in, and went to sleep in the same surroundings of smoke. Now they gather around a flickering television....

What is the human immune system's evolutionary response to breathing in smoke? A mucous membrane is formed around the lungs as a form of protection - that is a scientific fact of life.

No smoke inhalation, no mucous membrane protection...pretty simple, basic science.

Japanese men smoke a lot, perhaps the most in the world...but they do not show high rates of lung cancer. Why?

Which Country Has The Highest Rate Of Lung Cancer?


Hungary 52.0
Untied States Of America 42.1
Poland 40.9
Serbia 40.7
Denmark 38.4
Armenia 37.6
The Netherlands 36.0
Canada 35.9
Belgium 35.5
Croatia 34.1
Czech Republic 34.0
China 33.5
Slovenia 33.3
Cuba 31.6
United Kingdom 31.3

What country smokes the most?


What countries have the highest cancer rates?

World cancer statistics: Overall


1 Denmark 326.1
2 Ireland 317.0
3 Australia 314.1
4 New Zealand 309.2
5 Belgium 306.8
6 France (Metropolitan) 300.4
7 USA 300.2
8 Norway 299.1
9 Canada 296.6
10 Czech Republic 295.0


Greece smokes the most, but they're not even in the top 50 of world cancer rates!!!!

In the past 50 years, the amount of people who smoke in the United States has been cut in half. Have cancer rates been cut in half? No.

Cancer rates have skyrocketed. If half of the population quit smoking, why is cancer exploding?

Go to youtube, and please watch the video, "World Without Cancer," the story of vitamin B17.

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

Former smoker here

and so glad to be free of any addictions. It ruled my life, planning for when I could take a break to have a smoke. It tends to schedule your days and nights, and someone else has a claim on your money, namely the tobacco industry.

Did you see the movie "The Insider" with Al Pacino and Russell Crowe? It is about a whistle blower who reveals that the cigarette is a delivery system for an addictive drug they hide in the tobacco. That is what makes it addictive and keeps you paying.

If you can, stop before you are really addicted. Replacing one addiction with another does not work. And it is NOT tobacco that will get you hooked. It is the drug that is hidden in the cigarette. Good luck with that go213.

Cyril's picture

+1 Props to you

Props to you

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Aw come on now all you nay sayers ( cough, cough )

Cough, cough, cough, cough, hack-hack, cough cough,
Smoking is cough, cough, cough cough, hack cough good fer ya!
Cough, cough, cough, hack-hack ...... :-(

" In Thee O Lord do I put my trust " ~ Psalm 31:1~

Smoke Screens

I'm convinced tobacco isn't the problem the safety nazis pretend. The way it is processed can make it toxic, I'm convinced. I've never smoked cigarettes beyond a few puffs ... But cigars, now that's another story.


Wow, this is pretty stupid to brag about

"I finally started smoking! I'm so happy about that." WHY? Why would you be happy about that? lol Thats like saying "I finally starting adding poison to my food. I'm so happy about that." It just sounds pretty stupid and IS stupid. But hey, this is what freedom and liberty is all about. If you want to poison yourself, have at it. I just think you should read up on the addiction of it and the negative health impacts you will likely suffer before smoking too much more.

Reminds me of a guy that

Reminds me of a guy that called up the Michael Savage show saying he would "teach Michelle O a lesson" by going to McDonalds for dinner LOL.

Ventura 2012

reedr3v's picture

Exactly. Or like a teenager acting out against

sensible parental advice.

Couple other things to think about

My Dad had a friend when I was still in highschool that smoked. He was about 45 at the time. My Dad always ragged his ass about smoking. Anyway, my Dad's friend went on a hunting trip into canada and the private plane they were on crashed and he was killed. So, for sure that is one case where the guy enjoyed smoking and it had nothing to do with his death.

Next up is my situation. I used to smoke occasionally when I was in highschool and college but it was rare. But I did drink A LOT. I was a heavy drinker until 3 years ago when I just decided one day that I was done with it. Nothing bad happened to me, I always held a full time job and I was never mean to my wife and daughter. I was 45 years old and I was just burned out on booze. Now, I've never bought into the whole habitual drinking is a disease crap...so I didn't have to attend AA or go into treatment, rather, I just stopped buying booze and I stopped drinking it. It was pretty tough to break that habit...especially the first 90 days.

After my first month of not drinking I decided to start smoking to give me something to do. I used to ALWAYS have a beer or a drink in my hand and it wasn't so much me craving alcohol that was so difficult...it was the fact that drinking had become such a habit there was a huge void that I needed to fill. Smoking did the trick for me. I did not drink for 3 years and I now smoke about 8 - 10 cigarettes a day.

About 6 months ago I was at a company dinner(new job)and I had grown so tired of telling people that I don't drink and having to go into the whole story and then have everyone treat me with kid gloves like if they drank in front of me I would freak out and go on a bender...that I just said to hell with it...and drank 2 beers.

It didn't cause me any problems at all. I didn't even get a buzz from them. Since then if I am in a situation where someone buys me a beer or I'm at a party or whatever...I will just nurse a beer. The habit has been broken. But I still enjoy smoking. I smoke for several reasons. I get bored. I enjoy it. I eat much less since I started smoking, and it calms my nerves.

I have a sister that is over 300lbs and has all the medical problems that go along with being huge. I used to be baffled when she would give me a hard time about smoking when she is clearly addicted to food and is in much worse health than I am. I've honestly never felt better in my life. I typically eat fresh foods and I don't take any scripts (other than an occasional pill for recreational purposes only) but no blood pressure, cholestrol, anti-depressants, etc

I think it's pretty well established that getting hooked on prescription meds is worse for you than smoking. And like Jeff said in his article...I'm only going to be around for another 25 years or so and if I lose a couple years due to smoking....thats a trade off I'm willing to make. I might stop one day but I have no intentions of doing that anytime soon.

I also tend to think that anything the government tells me is the exact opposite of what is true. They hate smoking so much right now they must have found out that smoking counteracts all the poisons they are feeding us and putting in our water. Whatever, I love meeting people when I go outside at resturates and smoke or when I'm with a crowd us smokers all have something in common and it helps me be more social. Those are important to me. I'm glad I'm free to smoke.


this one takes the prize for stupidest thing ever written.

Cyril's picture

Fellow smoker here...

Fellow smoker here...

I can't congratulate you for starting the smoking ... that'd be really hypocrite. I still think it's a really, really bad idea if you turn out being addicted at some point... Guess why I'm sighing. Bad idea turned out to be a stupid one if you ask me.

But I sure can congratulate you for your LIBERTY MIND to do whatever pleases you, hell, yeah ! Your choice how to harm or kill yourself. It will kill your lungs. Others have TV and FOX "News" to kill their brains... and their own freedoms. Our pick in the end, indeed !

Now you gonna have to think and figure out how NOT to disturb NOR HARM all the non smokers around. That'll be an outdoor thing, anyway. And it ain't so easy, these days... I still enjoy it much under the moonlight in my backyard, with a good liquor glass, though :)

If you're like me, you gonna end up moving like a cat in some places where kids and parents can show up out of the blue ! Oh, and the obsession of spotting quick enough the signs which forbid, too...

Oh well. Good luck.

Consider to quit ... while "you can".

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

The beauty of natural rights

The beauty of natural rights as a human.....

You are the Thor Heyerdahl of the 2010s

rediscovering a new ancient truth...

Defeat the panda-industrial complex

I am dusk icon. anagram me.

Dangers of smoking inflated?


"Yes, a US white male (USWM) cigarette smoker has an 8% lifetime chance of dying from lung cancer but the USWM nonsmoker also has a 1% chance of dying from lung cancer (see Appendix A)."

Free includes debt-free!


Cause it's not smoke, but watchya smoke.....

Now, back to trippin on my my lava lamp........

Because: Some animals are more equal than other animals. -Animal Farm-

What the? > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MTIwY3_-ks

I just had to do it.

I am sorry, but I have wanted to say this since the first time I saw this post. Jeff, while you are smoking, why don't you take up spelling:

"Everyone has there place and this is truly mine."

"there" should be "their"


Now that I have gotten that off my chest, perhaps I can ignore this post. LOL After all I am a former smoker, and I am happy to keep it that way: I no longer have an addiction planning my day and spending habits for me.

Would the spelling Nazis please relax on this site.

No one should care that much if someone makes a minor spelling mistake.
Best thing about English is you can understand even if its wrong.
I bet everyone can read this without problem:

I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid. Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtsy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? Yaeh, and I awlyas thuhogt slpeling was ipmorantt.

"Freedom is never easy in a world of tyranny" - ME

Spelling Nazi reporting to Gestapo Headquarters

Since you brought me back to this post that I had hoped to escape once and for all after leaving my Nazi-style comment, please pardon my being snarky.

Before I cease and desist, please enlighten me. Do you practice typing English gibberish or do you take the easy way out and copy and paste from a site like this: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?20074-Try-Readin...!!!

If so you might like to give credit where credit is due to avoid plagiarism. But then again, I guess minor details are no problem at Gestapo Headquarters ;)

"Truth is Treason in an Empire of Lies" - Ron Paul
"Freedom is never easy in a world of tyranny" - FreeYourself
"It is hard being a Spelling Nazi when the Gestapo is on duty" - bear

It's sad that addiction is so bad

that people actually claim that smoking is good for you. Anyone who claims that smoking is good for you is an idiot. As a 34 year smoker I can tell you you are wrong. As a two year quitter I can tell you that your health is much better after quitting. All of you ignorant youngsters who play up smoking as if it was harmless will be eating your words when you are older and gasping for breath.

Smoking Helps Protect Against Lung Cancer

(warning!most here will not be able to assimilate this)

Smoking Helps Protect Against Lung Cancer
And here are some of the mice who helped to prove it!
Copyright Joe Vialls. 16 July 2003

2053 nuclear explosions between
1945 - 1998
This is what caused most all of the lung cancers.

Every year, thousands of medical doctors and other members of the “Anti-Smoking Inquisition” spend billions of dollars perpetuating what has unquestionably become the most misleading though successful social engineering scam in history. With the encouragement of most western governments, these Orwellian lobbyists pursue smokers with a fanatical zeal that completely overshadows the ridiculous American alcohol prohibition debacle, which started in 1919 and lasted until 1933.

Nowadays we look back on American prohibition with justifiable astonishment. Is it really true that an entire nation allowed itself to be denied a beer or scotch by a tiny group of tambourine-bashing fanatics? Sadly, yes it is, despite a total lack of evidence that alcohol causes any harm to humans, unless consumed in truly astronomical quantities.
Alas, the safety of alcohol was of no interest to the tambourine-bashers, for whom control over others was the one and only true goal. Americans were visibly “sinning” by enjoying themselves having a few alcoholic drinks, and the puritans interceded on behalf of God to make them all feel miserable again.
Although there is no direct link between alcohol and tobacco, the history of American prohibition is important, because it helps us understand how a tiny number of zealots managed to control the behavior and lives of tens of millions of people. Nowadays exactly the same thing is happening to smokers, though this time it is at the hands of government zealots and ignorant medical practitioners rather than tambourine-bashing religious fanatics.
Certain governments know that their past actions are directly responsible for causing most of the lung and skin cancers in the world today, so they go to extreme lengths in trying to deflect responsibility and thus financial liability away from themselves, and onto harmless organic tobacco instead. As we will find later in the report, humble organic tobacco has never hurt anyone, and in certain ways can justifiably claim to provide startling health protection.
Not all governments around the world share the same problem. Japan and Greece have the highest numbers of adult cigarette smokers in the world, but the lowest incidence of lung cancer. In direct contrast to this, America, Australia, Russia, and some South Pacific island groups have the lowest numbers of adult cigarette smokers in the world, but the highest incidence of lung cancer. This is clue number-one in unraveling the absurd but entrenched western medical lie that “smoking causes lung cancer.”
The first European contact with tobacco was in 1492, when Columbus and fellow explorer Rodriguo de Jerez saw natives smoking in Cuba. That very same day, de Jerez took his first puff and found it very relaxing, just as the locals had assured him it would be. This was an important occasion, because Rodriguo de Jerez discovered what the Cubans and native Americans had known for many centuries: that cigar and cigarette smoking is not only relaxing, it also cures coughs and other minor ailments. When he returned home, Rodriguo de Jerez proudly lit a cigar in the street, and was promptly arrested and imprisoned for three years by the horrified Spanish Inquisition. De Jerez thus became the first victim of the anti-smoking lobbies.
In less than a century, smoking became a much enjoyed and accepted social habit throughout Europe, with thousands of tons of tobacco being imported from the colonies to meet the increasing demand. A growing number of writers praised tobacco as a universal remedy for mankind’s ills. By the early 20th Century almost one in every two people smoked, but the incidence of lung cancer remained so low that it was almost immeasurable. Then something extraordinary happened on July 16, 1945: a terrifying cataclysmic event that would eventually cause western governments to distort the perception of smoking forever. As K. Greisen recalls:
“When the intensity of the light had diminished, I put away the glass and looked toward the tower directly. At about this time I noticed a blue color surrounding the smoke cloud. Then someone shouted that we should observe the shock wave travelling along the ground. The appearance of this was a brightly lighted circular area, near the ground, slowly spreading out towards us. The color was yellow.
“The permanence of the smoke cloud was one thing that surprised me. After the first rapid explosion, the lower part of the cloud seemed to assume a fixed shape and to remain hanging motionless in the air. The upper part meanwhile continued to rise, so that after a few minutes it was at least five miles high. It slowly assumed a zigzag shape because of the changing wind velocity at different altitudes. The smoke had pierced a cloud early in its ascent, and seemed to be completely unaffected by the cloud.”
This was the notorious “Trinity Test”, the first dirty nuclear weapon to be detonated in the atmosphere. A six-kilogram sphere of plutonium, compressed to supercriticality by explosive lenses, Trinity exploded over New Mexico with a force equal to approximately 20,000 tons of TNT. Within seconds, billions of deadly radioactive particles were sucked into the atmosphere to an altitude of six miles, where high-speed jet streams could circulate them far and wide.
The American Government knew about the radiation in advance, was well aware of its lethal effects on humans, but bluntly ordered the test with a complete disregard for health and welfare. In law, this was culpable gross negligence, but the American Government did not care. Sooner or later, one way or the other, they would find another culprit for any long-term effects suffered by Americans and other citizens in local and more remote areas.
If a single microscopic radioactive fallout particle lands on your skin at the beach, you get skin cancer. Inhale a single particle of the same lethal muck, and death from lung cancer becomes inevitable, unless you happen to be an exceptionally lucky cigarette smoker. The solid microscopic radioactive particle buries itself deep in the lung tissue, completely overwhelms the body’s limited reserves of vitamin B17, and causes rampant uncontrollable cell multiplication.
How can we be absolutely sure that radioactive fallout particles really cause lung cancer every time a subject is internally exposed? For real scientists, as opposed to medical quacks and government propagandists, this is not a problem. For any theory to be accepted scientifically, it must first be proven in accordance with rigorous requirements universally agreed by scientists. First the suspect radioactive agent must be isolated, then used in properly controlled laboratory experiments to produce the claimed result, i.e. lung cancer in mammals.
Scientists have ruthlessly sacrificed tens of thousands of mice and rats in this way over the years, deliberately subjecting their lungs to radioactive matter. The documented scientific results of these various experiments are identical. Every mouse or rat obediently contracts lung cancer, and every mouse or rat then dies. Theory has thus been converted to hard scientific fact under tightly controlled laboratory conditions. The suspect agent [radioactive matter] caused the claimed result [lung cancer] when inhaled by mammals.
The overall magnitude of lung cancer risk to humans from atmospheric radioactive fallout cannot be overstated. Before Russia, Britain and America outlawed atmospheric testing on August 5, 1963, more than 4,200 kilograms of plutonium had been discharged into the atmosphere. Because we know that less than one microgram [millionth of a single gram] of inhaled plutonium causes terminal lung cancer in a human, we therefore know that your friendly government has lofted 4,200,000,000 [4.2 Billion] lethal doses into the atmosphere, with particle radioactive half-life a minimum of 50,000 years. Frightening? Unfortunately it gets worse.
The plutonium mentioned above exists in the actual nuclear weapon before detonation, but by far the greatest number of deadly radioactive particles are those derived from common dirt or sand sucked up from the ground, and irradiated while travelling vertically through the weapon’s fireball. These particles form by far the largest part of the “smoke” in any photo of an atmospheric nuclear detonation. In most cases several tons of material are sucked up and permanently irradiated in transit, but let us be incredibly conservative and claim that only 1,000 kilograms of surface material is sucked up by each individual atmospheric nuclear test.
Before being banned by Russia, Britain and America, a total of 711 atmospheric nuclear tests were conducted, thereby creating 711,000 kilograms of deadly microscopic radioactive particles, to which must be added the original 4,200 kilograms from the weapons themselves, for a gross though very conservative total of 715,200 kilograms. There are more than a million lethal doses per kilogram, meaning that your governments have contaminated your atmosphere with more than 715,000,000,000 [715 Billion] such doses, enough to cause lung or skin cancer 117 times in every man, woman and child on earth.
Before you ask, no, the radioactive particles do not just “fade away”, at least not in your lifetime or that of your children and grandchildren. With a half-life of 50,000 years or longer, these countless trillions of deadly government-manufactured radioactive particles are essentially with you forever. Circulated around the world by powerful jet streams, these particles are deposited at random, though in higher concentrations within a couple of thousand miles of the original test sites. A simple wind or other surface disturbance is all that is needed to stir them up again and create enhanced dangers for those in the vicinity.
The once-innocent activity of playfully kicking sand around on the beach in summer could nowadays easily translate to suicide, if you happen to stir up a few radioactive particles that could stick to your skin or be inhaled into your lungs. Stop poking fun at Michael Jackson when he appears at your local airport wearing a surgical mask over his nose and mouth. He may look eccentric, but Michael will almost certainly outlive most of us.
Twelve years after the cataclysmic Trinity test, it became obvious to western governments that things were getting completely out of control, with a 1957 British Medical Research Council report stating that global “deaths from lung cancer have more than doubled during the period 1945 to 1955”, though no explanation was offered. During the same ten-year period, cancer deaths in the immediate proximity of Hiroshima and Nagasaki went up threefold. By the end of official atmospheric testing in 1963, the incidence of lung cancer in the Pacific Islands had increased fivefold since 1945. Having screwed your environment completely for 50,000 years, it was time for “big government” to start taking heavy diversionary action.
How could people be proved to be causing themselves to contract lung cancer, i.e. be said to be guilty of a self inflicted injury for which government could never be blamed or sued? The only obvious substance that people inhaled into their lungs, apart from air, was tobacco smoke, so the government boot was put in. Poorly qualified medical “researchers” suddenly found themselves overwhelmed with massive government grants all aimed at achieving the same end-result: “Prove that smoking causes lung cancer”. Real scientists [especially some notable nuclear physicists] smiled grimly at the early pathetic efforts of the fledgling anti-smoking lobby, and lured them into the deadliest trap of all. The quasi medical researchers were invited to prove their false claims under exactly the same rigid scientific rules that were used when proving that radioactive particles cause lung cancer in mammals.
Remember, for any theory to be accepted scientifically, it must first be proven in accordance with rigorous requirements universally agreed by scientists. First the suspect agent [tobacco smoke] must be isolated, then used in properly controlled laboratory experiments to produce the claimed result, i.e. lung cancer in mammals. Despite exposing literally tens of thousands of especially vulnerable mice and rats to the equivalent of 200 cigarettes per day for years on end, “medical science” has never once managed to induce lung cancer in any mouse or rat. Yes, you did read that correctly. For more than forty years, hundreds of thousands of medical doctors have been deliberately lying to you.
The real scientists had the quasi medical researchers by the throat, because “pairing” the deadly radioactive particle experiment with the benign tobacco smoke experiment, proved conclusively for all time that smoking cannot under any circumstances cause lung cancer. And further, in one large “accidental” experiment they were never allowed to publish, the real scientists proved with startling clarity that smoking actually helps to protect against lung cancer.
All mice and rats are used one-time-only in a specific experiment, and then destroyed. In this way researchers ensure that the results of whatever substance they are testing cannot be accidentally “contaminated” by the real or imagined effects of another substance. Then one day as if by magic, a few thousand mice from the smoking experiment “accidentally” found their way into the radioactive particle experiment, which in the past had killed every single one of its unfortunate test subjects. But this time, completely against the odds, sixty percent of the smoking mice survived exposure to the radioactive particles. The only variable was their prior exposure to copious quantities of tobacco smoke.
'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.'
Vishnu, Bhagavad-Gita
Government pressure was immediately brought to bear and the facts suppressed, but this did not completely silence the real scientists. Tongue in cheek perhaps, Professor Schrauzer, President of the International Association of Bio-inorganic Chemists, testified before a U.S. congressional committee in 1982 that it had long been well known to scientists that certain constituents of tobacco smoke act as anti-carcinogens [anti-cancer agents] in test animals. He continued that when known carcinogens [cancer causing substances] are applied to the animals, the application of constituents of cigarette smoke counter them.
Nor did Professor Schrauzer stop there. He further testified on oath to the committee that “no ingredient of cigarette smoke has been shown to cause human lung cancer”, adding that “no-one has been able to produce lung cancer in laboratory animals from smoking.” It was a neat answer to a rather perplexing problem. If government blocks publication of your scientific paper, take the alternate route and put the essential facts on the written congressional record!
Predictably, this hard truth drove the government and quasi medical “researchers” into a frenzy of rage. By 1982 they had actually started to believe their own ridiculous propaganda, and were not to be silenced by eminent members of the scientific establishment. Quite suddenly they switched the blame to other “secret” ingredients put into cigarettes by the tobacco companies. “Yes, that must be it!” they clamored eagerly, until a handful of scientists got on the phone and pointed out that these same “secret” ingredients had been included in the mice experiments, and had therefore also been proved incapable of causing lung cancer.
Things were looking desperate for government and the medical community overall. Since the anti-smoking funding had started in the early sixties, tens of thousands of medical doctors had passed through medical school, where they had been taught that smoking causes lung cancer. Most believed the lie, but cracks were starting to appear in the paintwork. Even the dullest of straight “C” doctors could not really make the data correlate, and when they queried it were told not to ask stupid questions. “Smoking causes lung cancer” converted to a creed, a quasi religious belief mechanism where blind faith became a substitute for proof.
Even blind faith needs a system of positive reinforcement, which in this case became the advertising agencies and the media. Suddenly the television screens were flooded with images of terribly blackened “smoker’s lungs”, with the accompanying mantra that you will die in horrible agony if you don’t quit now. It was all pathetic rubbish of course. On the mortuary slab the lungs of a smoker and non-smoker look an identical pink, and the only way a forensic pathologist can tell you might have been a smoker, is if he finds heavy stains of nicotine on your fingers, a packet of Camels or Marlboro in your coat pocket, or if one of your relatives unwisely admits on the record that you once smoked the demon weed.
The black lungs? From a coal miner, who throughout his working life breathed in copious quantities of microscopic black coal dust particles. Just like radioactive particles they get caught deep in the tissue of the lungs and stay there forever. If you worked down the coal mines for twenty or more years without a face mask, your lungs will probably look like this on the slab.
Many people ask exactly how it is that those smoking mice were protected from deadly radioactive particles, and even more are asking why real figures nowadays are showing far more non-smokers dying from lung cancer than smokers. Professor Sterling of the Simon Fraser University in Canada is perhaps closest to the truth, where he uses research papers to reason that smoking promotes the formation of a thin mucous layer in the lungs, “which forms a protective layer stopping any cancer-carrying particles from entering the lung tissue.”
This is probably as close as we can get to the truth at present, and it does make perfect scientific sense. Deadly radioactive particles inhaled by a smoker would initially be trapped by the mucous layer, and then be ejected from the body before they could enter the tissue.
All of this may be a bit depressing for non-smokers, but there are probably one or two things you can do to minimize the risks as far as possible. Rather than shy away from smokers in your local pub or club, get as close as you can and breathe in their expensive second-hand smoke. Go on, don’t be shy, suck in a few giant breaths. Or perhaps you could smoke one cigarette or small cigar after each meal, just three a day to build up a thin boundary mucous layer. If you cannot or will not do either of the above, consider phoning Michael Jackson to ask for a spare surgical mask!

November 6th 2012 I voted for Dr.Ron Paul
"We must remember, elections are short-term efforts. Revolutions are long-term projects." ~ Ron Paul