Noble Realms

spirituality - physics - conspiracy - philosophy - wisdom - and more...

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Noble Realms Forum is now closed. It will remain online as a searchable archive of posts spanning 3/25/04 to 2/22/08. Members may still log in to use email functions, but there will be no further posting activity. Thank you to everyone who has contributed over the years. - Tom/montalk

#16 2006-12-01 21:28:52

LipstickMystic
Guest

Re: Tobacco

Proto,

That's great that you were able to zap your pain away.

I wanted to share another quickie pranic healing cheat that you can use to remove pain of any kind.  Partially because I just used this technique to make a bad headache go away this week, and it took about three minutes to make it go away, and it's related to what you're talking about here.

You can take the edge of your hand (one or both hands) and scoop out energy debris from your auric field right above the spot that feels pain.  Scoop out the debris, imagine black or grey goop hovering above the spot where the pain is (because that's what's there etherically,) and you're just using your hand or hands to scoop it away.  Best to dump the debris in the toilet or sink, because if you just leave it on the bed or on a chair you WILL feel itchy later on because you're sitting in the gunk you just cleared out of your field.

So if you have a toothache, use your hands and scoop out debris over that spot (right above it, like maybe two inches above it) and keep scooping or sweeping away layers of debris around your whole head if you want to.  A lot of pain is caused by congestion of negative energy that builds up just above the actual body part in the auric field. So if you remove this congestion, the meridians open up again in your body, and as they are unblocked, the pain will go away.

I had one of those weird headaches the other day kind of in the center of my head. So I swept over my eyes, my forehead, the top and the sides of my head, and over my ears.  In classic pranic healing you usually use a color, imagining a color at the edges of your hands while you are scooping. Light whitish green is the default color for cleansing any congested area of the body where you feel pain.

It WORKS.  And even if you don't "believe" or feel particularly psychically tuned in, it doesn't matter. Just scoop away "imaginary" debris from the area of your energy field just above the affected body part, do this for two to five minutes, ten minutes for really bad pain, and you should notice immediate results.

Works on toofie aches, too!  I have one problem tooth I do this on regularly and have been able to avoid trips to the dentist while I save up my pennies.  Also works on joint pain, tummyaches, eye strain, carpal tunnel, chest pain, you name it.

LipstickMystic aka Jennifer

Last edited by LipstickMystic (2006-12-01 21:31:06)

 

#17 2006-12-01 21:49:22

Lono
Walker of worlds
From: Oklahoma, USA
Registered: 2006-05-03

Re: Tobacco

Mahatma wrote:

I did a search for some American Spirit tobacco and while trying to find some stumbled upon this story at the bbc http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2535353.stm

Basically, blood nicotine levels are higher after smoking American Spirit compared to 'regular' cigarettes, which Amanda Stanfor uses to assert that:

'The study explodes the myth that additive-free or 'natural' tobacco is safer than that used in conventionally produced cigarettes. Whilst there are concerns that some additives may increase the addictiveness of nicotine or make it easier to smoke, this study underlines the fact that 'natural' tobacco is just as hazardous as that packed with additives."

What's up with this? Big tobacco stooge?

This study may have merit, but this particular point is misleading.  Nicotine, in and of itself,  is known to NOT be the agent that causes cancer.  It's the toxins that are created when heating some of the cigarette elements that are the culprits.  So higher nicotine levels don't mean anything in and of themselves.

Offline

 

#18 2006-12-01 23:13:49

free*world
*apply within
Registered: 2006-06-29

Re: Tobacco

Smoking Helps Protect Against Lung Cancer
And here are some of the mice who helped to prove it!

Copyright Joe Vialls. 16 July 2003
   

           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!


When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace. Jimi Hendrix 

Offline

 

#19 2006-12-02 07:21:22

limukala
Member
From: O'ahu
Registered: 2006-05-26

Re: Tobacco

There was a massive epidemiological study conducted in China (the biggest ever) that studied hundreds of variables and included 7000 subjects, and the strongest correlation of the ENTIRE study was a powerful NEGATIVE correlation between smoking home-made cigarettes and cancer of all kinds!!!  Not what you hear from the Surgeon General.  Now, that doesn't apply to modern factory farmed cigarettes, as even those without carcinogenic additives are loaded with Polonium thanks to the  toxic organophosphate fertilizers they use.  It also doesn't change the fact that smoking gives you emphesyma and other lung ailments.


seeker of truth

follow no path
all paths lead where

truth is here

E.E. Cummings

Offline

 

#20 2006-12-02 14:53:49

free*world
*apply within
Registered: 2006-06-29

Re: Tobacco

limukala wrote
It also doesn't change the fact that smoking gives you emphesyma and other lung ailments.

Yes, but, NOT Necessarily.  It's not that simple.  My Grandfather smoked a pack a day since before world war 2 and died peacefully in his sleep one day after lunch,  NEVER SICK.  He was 93.

To juxtapose:  Best mate's old school friend, health nut, triathelete, 25yo, died (suddenly) of lung cancer.

My DOCTOR asked me about my smoking, and about my family, she concluded that I was "probably genetically ok to smoke".  You don't hear that ANYWHERE.

Something more is definitely going on.

p.s.  my father-in-law threw me out of his house when I cited the above examples in response to yet another of his rants about smoking and smokers.  He said (looking like maniac) "that's crap, stop talking crap"  and I said "it's not crap it's true, and I'll talk any crap I like, thanks"  He said "then you can get out of my house"  !!  Really hit the propaganda nerve. He refused to give me a christmas kiss one year after asking first whether I had been smoking, and shook my hand instead lol  He'll never be offered another, poor thing. big_smile

Last edited by free*world (2006-12-02 15:00:34)


When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace. Jimi Hendrix 

Offline

 

#21 2006-12-02 20:45:10

limukala
Member
From: O'ahu
Registered: 2006-05-26

Re: Tobacco

On the other side of anecdotal evidence, my great-grandma never smoked a day in her life (she was in fact a Christian Scientist) and lived a healthy lifestyle, yet died of emphysema from my great-grandpa's habit).  The doctor said her lungs looked like those of a lifelong smoker (and if you've seen smoker's lungs, you can't deny the nasty side effects).

Even if you live a long life as a smoker, it definitely effects quality of life, at least I've never met a smoker who could do any sort of decent exercise without wheezing and gasping for breath (and I smoked for years, though granted, the people I've known who have smoked organic tobacco are a much smaller subset)


seeker of truth

follow no path
all paths lead where

truth is here

E.E. Cummings

Offline

 

#22 2006-12-02 21:06:58

lyra
Naked Emperor Pointer Outer
From: my own private idaho
Registered: 2004-03-25
Website

Re: Tobacco

Well, all I can say is that there's no harm in having the occasional organic, roll-your-own smoke. During the summer I probably smoked 6 total.  I'm not going to die from that.  big_smile   Smoking a pack a day however of any type of tobacco probably can't be healthy....


"Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting "Holy shit ... what a ride!"  - Anonymous
-----
"I get by with a little help from my (higher density) friends."
-----

Offline

 

#23 2006-12-03 06:38:53

limukala
Member
From: O'ahu
Registered: 2006-05-26

Re: Tobacco

Don't get me wrong, I am a big fan of occasional tobacco consumption.  My wife on the other hand, grew up in a family of heavy smokers, so can't really handle the whole moderation thing (and that EVIL witch of a mother-in-law bought cigarettes for her and CONVINCED her to start smoking again when she was breastfeeding my daughter!!!!!!!!  She also filled our house with junkfood and tries to convince my wife that I am a manipulative bastard for encouraging her to not smoke or eat junkfood.  Of course, this is because she weighs about 400 pounds and is in terrible health, but loves to talk about how it is all genetics, never mind the six pack of soda, 8+ hours a day of "Judge Mathis" type television, 8000 calories a day of junk food, and a pack a day of the cheapest, nastiest cigarettes.  When her daughter lives a healthy and happy lifestyle, that directly challenges her "its not my fault" mentality (its a thyroid problem, or, "you'd better watch out for osteoporosis, it runs in the family" (which just isn't true for short, thick boned people, but soda sure as hell suck calcium out of your bones).

Whew, sorry for the off-topic rant.


seeker of truth

follow no path
all paths lead where

truth is here

E.E. Cummings

Offline

 

#24 2006-12-03 16:38:01

Seeking the Truth
Member
Registered: 2006-12-02

Re: Tobacco

Hi ya'll,

This is my first post here as a new member. I've been around for a while, but just got registered yesterday. I guess it's appropriate that my first post would be in the tobacco thread, since I've smoked for a very long time.

I started rolling my own smokes over a year ago. At the time it was because of the money factor: buy a carton for $30 or roll my own for about $15. I didn't know at the time that this was a very good decision.

I later learned from an article--that I can't find sad -- the truth about "cigarettes". It told of how the cigarettes today are anything but tobacco. Most of it is chemicals. They use very little of the plant. Actually, most of what they use is cellulose and other man-made fillers. The take this, combine it with a few stems and roots, lace it with chemicals to make it smell/taste like tobacco, and make a big soup pot of poison. This gets formed into "sheet tobacco" and is turned into cigs (marlboro, winston, camel). Very disturbing information for someone who's smoked that trash for 15 years!!

Anyhoo, the article goes on to reveal that most of the cancer causing effects from smoking are caused by these man-made chemicals and from the pesticides used to grow the tobacco. It was very interesting to read of all the pesticides used on tobacco. The bad part is that none of these pesticides have been tested appropriately in the respect of what happens to them when the are ignited and inhaled. The consequences of this are enormous.  The pesticides are actually the most harmful part of smoking.  Think about it, before the Industrial Revolution, humans smoked tobacco all their lives and didn't get cancer; only since the advent of pesticide use have we all been dropping like flies from lung cancer associated with smoking.

Upon reading this, I switched from the regular American Spirit tobacco in the blue can to the organic tobacco, as mentioned above by someone else. There are only a couple stores in town that carry the red pouches (nobody can get the cans), and they only have a few at a time on the shelf. After driving around town and finding it all sold out one day, I found a wonderful website selling organic tobacco. It's not the same as what you get in the store. It's actually the full leaves that you have to cut yourself.  Which is fine with me, for it slows me down and makes it more of a ceremony--like it was supposed to be--instead of a mindless habit. I also learned from the man who runs this site the difference between the nicotine content as it pertains to the plant. The lowest leaves (lug) contain the smallest amount of nicotine, and have less tobacco taste. The middle leaves are "cutter" and have more nicotine. At the top of the plant (wrapper), the most nicotine will be found, but the taste is quite harsh.  Most tobacco sold nowadays is a combination of different leaves.  Very interesting information...

Sun Butler (the man who owns the website) told me that the American Spirit organic really is organic (I was worried that they were dupping the consumer). He actually set up the division for them and hooked them up with organic farmers. So if you can get ahold of the A.S. in the red pouch, then you'll be getting tobacco without pesticides. However, if you want the real deal, and want to cut down on smoking, I advise going to this website and buying your own leaves, which you can then process into your own cigarettes--and you'll know for certain what exactly is in your smokes.  I have cut down on my smoking because of this, and I'm sure that's what all my synchronicities have been leading me to.  I hope to go further in being able to quit altogether, but for now at least I know where my stuff is coming from, rather than blindly accepting what they offer up as "cigarettes."

BTW, if you're switching from name-brand cigs to real tobacco, watch out!! You will notice a difference, because you'll be smoking the real plant instead of chemicals. For the first couple days after starting to roll my own, I had headaches. I believe it was from coming off the chemicals. I noticed that every time I tried to quit, by the way, so it wasn't a headache from the real thing, it was withdrawal from the crap.  Roll-your-own cigs are real tobacco, so be prepared for some stiff smokes!  My friends can't handle them because they're so strong and they're used to the imitation. Oh, and also my cigarettes last twice as long as a Camel and they also go out on their own if you're not actively smoking it, which means less waste. Compare the amount of smoke coming off a RYO and a regular smoke--you'll be amazed!! Less of a fire hazard too smile

okay, well here's the site I found when doing a search for organic tobacco. I haven't found any other site that provides this type of whole leaf.  It's http://grandadtobacco.com. The prices are very reasonable when compared to the AS organic pouches available in the stores. They are out of Virginia. The only problem I had was that the ordering page was not secure, so I didn't want to order it online. I circumvented that by emailing him and explaining the situation. We got it worked out and I ordered over the phone. Sun Butler is awesome. Very kind and knowledgable.

On a side note:  Thanks to all of you for being in this forum, and a special thanks to montalk for providing a place for us to come. I have already learned a great deal from being here. I have many questions/observations and I'm hoping to receive some answers from all of you. You have my sincerest respect...

Debbie

Offline

 

#25 2006-12-04 01:48:27

free*world
*apply within
Registered: 2006-06-29

Re: Tobacco

Hi Debbie,

I've been rolling my own for 15 years now, and cannot touch "tailor mades".  They taste like poison, burn in a minute, complete waste of money.

However, I'm in Australia and cannot get organic tobacco.  I've searched and searched.  I would love to try the American Spirit Tobacco, but they can't send here.  sad  If anyone knows any different, or any Aussie suppliers, then would love to hear about it.   Cheers.


When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace. Jimi Hendrix 

Offline

 

#26 2006-12-04 07:00:36

limukala
Member
From: O'ahu
Registered: 2006-05-26

Re: Tobacco

I'm sure you could at least find some seeds.


seeker of truth

follow no path
all paths lead where

truth is here

E.E. Cummings

Offline

 

#27 2006-12-04 07:04:43

free*world
*apply within
Registered: 2006-06-29

Re: Tobacco

Yes, have been looking at this angle also.  It is illegal to grow tobacco without a license here, however, I doubt anyone would even be able to identify it.


When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace. Jimi Hendrix 

Offline

 

#28 2006-12-04 08:00:43

free*world
*apply within
Registered: 2006-06-29

Re: Tobacco

just ordered seeds from here.  600 seeds for the price of a 50g pouch of tobacco ($25 aud).

http://www.coffinails.com/index.html

Last edited by free*world (2006-12-04 08:01:43)


When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace. Jimi Hendrix 

Offline

 

#29 2006-12-04 13:06:48

Seeking the Truth
Member
Registered: 2006-12-02

Re: Tobacco

I can't believe it's illegal to grow there!!  yikes  It's just a flower, for pete's sake! Grow it in your garden with a bunch of other flowers and they'll never know the difference wink 
I wonder if someone in the US could ship the product to you?  Is it also illegal to send tobacco through the international mailing system --say, for regular folk?

Offline

 

#30 2006-12-04 15:33:32

Worldbridger
Member
Registered: 2006-09-28

Re: Tobacco

Thx for the link for seeds.  I plan to grow a few plants in next years garden.  I had  tobacco (pouches of drum) mailed from Canada to South Korea several times without any trouble.

Offline

 

Board footer

Powered by PunBB
© Copyright 2002–2005 Rickard Andersson