smoking control (Page 1 of 3)

Hummmm .... interesting!!!! Well I guess a heath care company should set a standard and promote a healthy living but not like this. I totally disapprove. I think people should make their own choices but not at the expense of their job. If the company cares so much for their employee’s health they should have found a better way to stimulate them to quit smoking. The real reason is mentioned by the founder of the company: they don't want to pay the costs associated with smoking. This is just a way for them to make more profit; they don't really care for the people in the actual way. They shouldn’t have made this policy for the existing employees, just for the new ones (though even this is not normal to take place)
This is just another control form and shouldn't be allowed to take place.

An interesting anecdote, don't know if it's true or not, but, a woman I used to work with swears that her mom was a lifelong smoker and yet amazingly, had pink lungs.  The docs were mystified as to how THAT was possible.    Maybe she's lying, but honestly, this wasn't a woman prone to tall tales or lies or exagerations.  So, I believed that she believed that this was the case.

Interesting, if that's true.

I think that things aren't what they seem to be with regards to smoking.  I think that if one occasionally smokes all natural, organic tobacco "roll your owns" then you'll be fine.  I do that when the weather is warm.  Like to go out and have a tasty homemade cigarette made from fresh, yummy smelling American Spirit tobacco that comes in a pouch, with a piece of pure cotton inserted in for a filter.  When it's fresh and soft and moist it kinda almost smells like raisins.   !   

The problem with cigarettes isn't the tobacco.  It's the hundred billion chemical additives that they mix in, compounded by the fiberglass filters.  THAT'S what's causing lung problems.  Not tobacco in itself.

But they don't tell you that.  They tell you it's the tobacco.    Go figure.  No surprise there.

Tobacco actually supposedly has health benefits, one of which is boosting your hemoglobin cell count, as well as being a "psychic booster", ie, increasing your intuition capabilities.  Not sure how, but "the C's said", so, it's something to consider.        The latter could be one major reason that "They" also like to stamp it out.  The less people that are aware, the better.

Another smaller aspect to consider which is related to that point is that smokers usually tend to be an interesting breed.  They're different in some ways.   They congragate outside, huddled together puffing away...talking...interacting....they're usually people who notice things and question things, usually a little more fiesty and mouthy and outspoken then the mainstream.   I don't know, just something I noticed.  Doesn't mean "ALL NON SMOKERS DON'T NOTICE THINGS", no, that's not what I'm saying.  But I have noted that smokers are a different breed of people.    They are the types more likely to cause a problem I would think then non-smokers.  "They" don't like that.  So, stamp out the smoking, and you've chipped away some more at the "problem".

Just something to consider........................

Not sure I follow you...... you're saying that the idea of organic tobacco being good was inserted in to reinforce that smoking is still the culprit.....I get what you mean here -  the focus still being on cigarettes instead of other culprits-- but......there still has to be validity to the idea that organic tobacco with no additives is healthier than mass produced cartons of cigarettes that contain hundreds of extra chemicals.   I don't believe that's a myth as you say.   One is an all natural plant.  The other is...well, who knows what it is by the time they're done with it!   

That's a good theory, and one that shouldn't be overlooked.   But when I thought about your idea I realized......well, how long have all those chemical additives been added to cigarettes?   When did the cigarette manufacturers begin adding all that extra junk in? 

If it was in fact within the last 60 years, then I think that possibly negates the theory about the A-bomb and puts the crosshairs back onto mass manufactured chemical laden cigarettes. 

Can anybody find out when these companies began adding in the superfluous chemicals?   Any possible dates?  I think this would REALLY help narrow things down in terms of theories.

http://www.joevialls.co.uk/transpositions/smoking.html

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepage … erling.htm

here are a few links to ck out lyra...let me know what you think, feel, about the info.

certainly, of course, imho ONLY, i prefer organic, and believe so much in organic it is the only food i will consume also.  however, what i am reading about tobacco is that it protects the lungs whether organic or not.  i realize in this world of mirrors that we have to learn to be in touch with our higher knowing.  so i am just wading thru the info and putting pieces together.  no fixed "belief" yet...trying to keep from "fixing" *grin*

How very interesting.  My brother drives trucks for a living, and he delivered to some customers one time that had this same idea.  My brother told me that this guy said he belonged to this organization or something that has a lot of weight to it, and said that the reason that the FBI or CIA or whatever doesn't just up and wipe them out is because these "rebels" are powerful in their own right.  My brother's not the conspiracy, search-for-truth kinda guy, but he told me this because he knows that I like the interesting things.

Supposedly a big culprit (among other things) is the sugar they add to cure the tobacco. The french smoke more than americans but their tobacco isn't cured in sugar yet have less lung cancer than americans.

Can't remember where I read it. But theres my 2cents.

Do we have any proof for this, something to support this claim?  I would be curious, considering that in this day and age we should know better than to still be using asbestos.  Reminds me of the urban legend (which you can find on Snopes.com)  that claims that tampons are made out of asbestos.  So, until there's something to support this, I'll remain skeptical.....