Wednesday, June 6, 2007

Introduction Post

I'm not totally new to the world of blogs, but this is my new attempt of having one.

I'm Jay, and I'm a real supporter of smokers rights in Illinois as well as nationwide. My age is irrevelant. But I will say I'm in my late 20's and I'm from Chicago. African-American is my heritage, and I feel very proud to be a Black smoker living in America.

As far as what I smoke is concerned goes: Well, I actually like both regular and menthol cigs. I particularly like the taste of regular cigs I can make myself (these are called RYO/MYO cigs online). But I love menthols the most. I personally believe if menthols never existed, I never would''ve discovered the truth of smoking. That is, the truth antis don't want society to hear. Smoking is a pleasurable habit, not filthy and deadly as they make smoking sound. And since it's common for folks of my kind to enjoy mint, it's no surprise why menthols are more common among African-American smokers in particular.

Speaking of menthols, major anti groups make claims such as "African-American smokers have a greater risk f getting lung cancer because of the menthol added to their cigs." ACS (American Cancer Society) made this claim, and all they're doing is trying to make a group of smokers feel bad.

I understand there are risks assosciated with smoking. But with all due respect to the ACS, I've met a few ladies who are a lot older than me. And guess what they were smoking? Yup! Newports! I'd like to ask the ACS "How can a Black smoker smoke menthols for 30-40 straight years, and this person still has no lung cancer?"

If there is some truth (on the anti side) about Big Tobacco making more menthol brands during the Civil Rights era as a way of attracting minorities to smoking, then thank you Big Tobacco for menthols. Because I had a secret interest in smoking even when I was a little boy. I didn't quite understand the "menthol" term back then.

But based on how much I enjoy smoking now, I can't imagine myself quitting if menthols disappeared. I'd make my own regulars or buy some Marlboro Red 100's. Yeah, I smoke long-length cigs because I get more enjoyment for my money. Especially since king-sized cigs are the same price.

Some brainwashed smokers online think I'm denying I'm addicted to cigs, and how I'll regret starting smoking when I'm a lot older. I am not addicted. I just enjoy smoking a lot, and it's the only real pleasure I have in my life. Nothing beats enjoying a cig on a sunny morning while sitting down. It is sad I didn't grow up in the days when smoking was allowed in tons of public buildings.

In the old days, smokers were treated like first class Americans. In modern times, smokers are treated like second class citizens. I even heard of the saying "Smokers are the 21st century Blacks." This is a topic I'll try to focus on my next post. Including explaining how I got involved with smokers rights.


Alexander said...

Hi dare Jay,

let me be the first one to congratulate you to your effort well done. I hope that you have many contributions and care about a bit of humor as well.


Gary K. said...

Hi Jay,
Let us start out with a strong statement. "SMOKING DOES NOT CAUSE LUNG CANCER". Gary K.

Can't we just make some animals breathe enough
tobacco smoke and develop cancers at higher rates, so we can
establish it once and for all? We could do that, and it was done, of
course, except that the data went the "wrong way" -- the smoking mice
get fewer lung cancers than non-smoking mice, with dose-response
relation showing that tobacco smoke is protective against lung

Inhalation Bioassy of Cigarette Smoke in Rats
A.P. Wehrner, et al. Battelle Pacific Northwest Labs, Richland WA
Journal of Toxiology & Applied Pharmacology, Vol. 61: pp 1-17 (1981)

The results show that the highest number of tumors occurred in the
untreated control [non-smoking] rats. The next highest number of
tumors occurred in rats subject to sham smoking, i.e. rats which were
placed in the smoking machine without smoke exposure, and the lowest
number of tumors occurred in the smoke-exposed rats. Among the
latter, the largest number of tumors occurred in rats exposed to
smoke from cigarettes having the lowest level of nicotine.

Here is a later study done with mice.

Finch GL, Nikula KJ, Belinsky SA, Barr EB, Stoner GD, Lechner JF, Failure of cigarette smoke to induce or promote lung cancer in the A/J mouse, Cancer Lett; 99(2):161-7 1996

No matter how much tobacco smoke they made poor animals inhale, even
in equivalents of a carton or more per day (through surgically
implanted breathing tubes), the more they smoked the fewer lung
cancers they get. It just doesn't work and it even contradicts
their "theory" so they just gave it up.

Jason T said...

Thanks for the comments. Smoking is a vice in my life, and I guess that's why I enjoy reading and writing about it. I can't imagine myself not ever holding Newports again as an ex-smoker.

Lung Cancer has a lot to do with the person's family history on deaths. Nobody in my family ever died from lung cancer. So much for "us" having a greater chance of dying from lung cancer than other groups of smokers.

I think menthols having crystals in them is a lie too. I'd see glass in my Newports if they had crystals in them for real.