Smoking/Cessation/History of smoking-- not the nicotine, the $igarette is the problem

Since 1492
For centuries, partly because tobacco was expensive, smoking pipes were used, usually with a long stem and a narrow bowl (crater) in which small amounts of tobacco could be burned at a lower temperature than in ones with a wider bowl (and, if inhaled, by sucking much more slowly than on a present-day $igarette).

Historians are urged to research how the status of inhalant vs. non-inhalant "smoking" has varied over the centuries. Today according to one source 94% of tobacco "smokers" are $igarette users, presumably mostly inhalant; 5% smoke cigars (most claim not to inhale), 1% (like Lord Russell who lived to be 98) use the big western-style "tobacco pipe" with a bowl diameter of 15 mm and more, and also mostly claim to be non-inhalant.

Technology first, then marketing opportunism
In the late 19th century $igarette-rolling machines were developed, and marketers since have discovered they could sell much more tobacco (and tobacco packaging services etc.) by attracting customers to the "sanitation", "convenience", "mildness" etc. of hot-burning paper tubes loaded with specially pre-toasted, pre-medicated mild tobaccoes, of which one could inhale large overdoses hurriedly without coughing or other unwanted warning symptoms, and get a quick large intake of nicotine, right into the bloodstream, causing "pleasure" (i.e. "bloodsugar"-- the nicotine causes a bloodsugar rise and a temperary well-being feeling). Instead of learning the more sophisticated art of sucking continuously very slow, possibly for 5-15 seconds (see hatha yoga/pranayama breathing), youngsters (through ad pictures, movies, etc. and filtered down through peer groups) were taught to suck hard for a short time (a one-second "puff", a 2-4 second "drag") from a device (the cigaret) which is designed to burn hot enough (up to 700 C/1300 F, less than seven inches from your trachea) to keep burning and be ready, without re-lighting, for further puffs minutes or seconds later. Particularly strong heroic men were supposed to be able to "drag" without flinching (as "to bogart a joint"). Abusing oneself ostentatiously with a hot burning $igarette relieved anxieties by showing others, especially bullies, that one was fearless and capable of inflicting punishment (either on oneself or, by implication, on others). This could be enough to escape being picked on by getting accepted into a gang by showing the gangleader you can help beat up on his enemies.

20th C.: 200 million
Pursuit of the magic "pleasure = bloodsugar" drug nicotine lured the customers on to inhale massive amounts of carbon monoxide (CO), tars etc. By the mid-20th century research began to show catastrophic death increases, but by that time it was too late to prevent a possible 200 million human fatalities in just one century, the greatest genocide (so far) in the history of the planet.

21st C.: 1 BIL?
The World Health Organization (Feb. 7, 2008) estimates the current yearly cigaret death toll at 5.4 million and predicts in a generation it could rise to 10 million (approaching a BILLION per century) as teenagers in China and India begin to have enough cigaret money to buy more overdoses.


 * How to reconcile above allegations with scientific evidence that shows small amounts of second- hand smoke detrimental to non-smokers in the vicinity of smokers? citations needed How do the suggested reduced doses above compare to dose ingested via second hand smoke?


 * Thanks, I'll look for citations. Meanwhile, it was published in the 1970's that "side-stream" smoke(SSS)-- the part that rises directly off the tip of a cigaret, NOT same as "second-hand" smoke (SHS)-- contains 5 times as much carbon monoxide (the no. 1 cardiovascular toxin), 5 times as much sulfur dioxide, 50 times as much ammonia etc. etc. as "main-stream"(MSS) (the part inhaled through the interior of the device).

Eliminate SSS; SHS not so bad
Eliminating the $IGARETTE (and all other overdose smoking methods that produce more smoke than the smoker inhales) and substituting a narrow (1/4 inch i.d.) enclosed utensil in which only a small amount of smoke can be produced at a time, just enough for the user to inhale and no more, eliminates the "SSS" problem. Then, it turns out, true "second-hand" smoke (SHS), that part which has been in and out through the smoker's lungs, actually contains the LEAST carbon monoxide. His/her lungs have "purified" that smoke and made it less bad for bystanders than either the SSS or the MSS.

(Taboo has made it difficult for modern humans to admit to themselves that in every crowded ballroom, church, courtroom or auditorium they routinely rebreathe expired breath from other humans-- largely harmlessly of course. They look for ways to either ignore or disparage such breath, such as confusing "side-stream" with "second-hand" smoke and ignoring a vital biomedical distinction between the two. As soon as they "discover" i.e. admit the latter, there might be prompt widespread agreement on the virtues of a single-toke utensil. (This term includes "double toke"-- see article for important physics details about two persons sucking simultaneously.)

The 3 fractions: proposed clarification
MSS = Mainstream Smoke - the part inhaled into mouth through cigaret or pipestem

SSS = Sidestream Smoke - the part which, being lighter than ambient air, rises initially off the tip of a cigaret-- or from a cigaret or pipe just after a smoker has finished puffing on it and it is burning particularly hot. The cigaret is designed to offer continued burning and readiness for the next puff any time you want it, but only if you bring the temperature up to nearly 1500° F on each puff. Right after you finish a puff is when most of the sidestream smoke is released.

(This term confuses some persons because the smoke rises directly up and does not leave the cigaret in a sideways direction except due to wind.)

SHS = Second-hand Smoke - the part which has been breathed in and breathed out by the smoker; generally least harmful but ignorantly feared most by many.

$igarette advertising history, or there's a sucker started every second
An overwhelming barrage of advertising has been the key to recent genocidal "success" of the tobacco industry. Surplus profit from overdose addicts was recycled into seductive ads to create new addicts (ad + diction = addiction, get it?).

In 1913, with the introduction of the Camel brand, U. S. $igarette makers launched an unprecedented advertising onslought. One source has alleged that the U.S. cigaret market doubled between 1913 and 1918.

Oh, yes, something else happened between 1914 and 1918-- a war or something. Well, $igarettes were appreciated as convenient for soldiers worried about losing their pipe, right? General Pershing praised tobacco as the nation's number one soldier, or something like that. Nicotine helped soldiers stay awake when they were on guard (by paralyzing the sleep process), and focus their mind (on spying, aiming, killing etc.). The famous Eleanor Roosevelt, whose husband was U. S. Undersecretary of the Navy, was one of those ladies who appeared in hospitals providing free $igarettes to wounded Navy boys in 1918. (See Joseph P. Lash, Eleanor and Franklin, 1972.)

Show business showed kids how to smoke
When Frank Sinatra stepped out to sing, "Light Up a Lucky, It's Light-Up Time" and pre-programmed pubescent girls screamed, pubescent boys listening to the radio learned girls will respond to men who smoke. Ronald Reagan earned future campaign money in 1937 (a picture postcard says, "Yours for Kentucky Club, (signed) Dutch Reagan"), 1943 (a magazine-page picture ad says, "Chesterfield is My Cigarette, (signed) Ronald Reagan"), etc., even though Reagan was personally a non-smoker (See Life Magazine, Dec. 1980).

Such recruitment, slowed in the US, has accelerated in Asia-- a survey showed 89% of movies made in India (2004-5) contained depictions of tobacco use, over 70% of it by the leading stars of the picture. (The India Ministry of HealthIndian_health_ministry, publicly embarrassed, has since promised to take action against such abuse.)

What's behind the anti-cannabis laws?
As President, Reagan promoted the War on Drugs, really a War Against Cannabis-- an alternative herb which could substitute for tobacco! By 2007 over 872,000 Americans were arrested for cannabis "violations" in a single year, with the billions of dollars for all this arresting and processing law-enforcement function amply covered by over $36 billion (as complained-- or bragged?-- on an R. J. Reynolds website) collected by the selfsame government entities in the form of tobacco excise taxes, license fees, etc., not to mention campaign contributions primarily to the Republican Party and its candidates.

Why Big Tobacco fears cannabis
In ascending order:

2. Over 100 million persons smoke cannabis today worldwide, and it could, if legalized, readily replace tobacco among many smokers now each paying up to $2000 a year (pack a day) to the Industry; 1. (Much worse) because cannabis contains no overdose-addictive drug such as nicotine, many users are content to use infinitesimally small amounts, and have learned to use a miniature pipe or single-toke utensil. If this conservative behavior, legalized de facto along with the cannabis, began to be adopted widely by tobacco smokers instead of the profitable overdose cigaret, the industry profit margin would be doomed.
 * The above is medically disputed. THC is an active addictive element in marijuana. Further, despite the early hysteria and humor associated with propaganda like "Reefer Madness" shown in U.S. schools in the 60s and 70s, scientific studies have found a clear correlation between use of Marijuana and subsequent use of harder drugs such as cocaine, heroin, meth, etc. [3].


 * While THC may appear to be psychologically addictive for some, it is rare to encounter anyone craving 20 hot-burning overdose cigarets of it a day-- routine for nicotine. For a discussion of gateway drug theory, see Talk page.

Why Big Pharma fears cannabis
In ascending order:

2. Cannabis is alleged to be a viable cheap, natural substitute for many present-day highly profitable drugs; 1. Should cannabis legalization result in a sudden drastic reduction in deaths and illnesses caused by tobacco, due to correlative legalizing of an anti-overdose smoking utensil which can be used by tobacco smokers instead of the profitable overdose cigaret, the result could be a matching drastic reduction in the demand for high-profit drugs and treatments needed by patients suffering diseases such as high blood pressure which result from chronic cigaret overuse.

Why so many present-day cannabis users smoke a "joint" or "blunt" rather than use a conservative utensil
3. Partly, of course, it's the longtime $trillion cigaret advertising, creating a profitable "synthetic tradition" which offers a glamorized grown-upness of fearlessly gesturing with a kind of torch in your hand (like a gun in typical crime drama shows). The hot burning overdose "joint" helps an emotionally insecure user borrow a media repertory of trucculent defiant tobacco cigarette gestures. 2. More recently, it is alleged that, since the 90's, tobacco companies slipped money to rap artists to include references to "blunts" in their songs. (A "blunt" is a cigar-skin with the tobacco filler discarded and an overdose of expensive cannabis rolled inside. User can pose as a hypermasculine bigshot with the big "cigar". Because the cigar wrapper contains nicotine, it's a sneaky way to get youngsters hooked on nicotine. (If the nicotine helps get them hooked on further drugs, prohibitionists can conveniently blame that on the cannabis.) Note artist names such as "Cool" and "Tu-Pac". 1. The main reason is fear of the law-- it's easier to hide or dispose of a "joint" than a pipe, you aren't in danger of being arrested while they fish for evidence of something even worse to book you on, or of losing your investment in the utensil (such as a $600 vaporizer). And people say, "If the cops find one of those in here, they'll confiscate my car!"

Some legal issues concerning utensils
Try to get a signed official letter from your congressman or other government official, or a prescription from a physician, authorizing you to possess and use an anti-overdose smoking utensil, on the premise that its purpose is to enable you to protect your health by reducing $igarette consumption.
 * Keep in mind that in the U.S. no letter from an official can exempt you from equal application of statutes as written. At worst it may embroil the official in criminal conspiracy charges.


 * That being the case, it might be necessary to remind politicians that suppressing anti-overdose smoking equipment to prevent "drug use" is like suppressing condoms to prevent sexually transmitted diseases.


 * Be aware that some medical cannabis users in the U.S. have found federal law enforcement willing and able to lock up medical users despite full compliance with local and state laws. I am looking for citations from California. Please find links provided below. Mirwin 02:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

http://www.canorml.org/news/EasternDistrictCrackdown.htm http://www.canorml.org/home.htm


 * True, but bear in mind the above suggestions concern only possession of a utensil, for stated tobacco-reduction use, and not possession of cannabis. In the above recommended letter, and in political advocacy, maybe one could present the argument that possession of an anti-overdose utensil is evidence of the intent to be a sober responsible citizen, more within the law than a reckless self-destructive hot-burning-overdose nicotine slave.