Putting That In My Pipe And Smoking It?

[Aloysius]

[quote name='CatholicCid' post='1815412' date='Mar 24 2009, 09:40 AM']Yes, most smoke has carcinogens in it (I want to say all, but there is always that one exception to the rule somewhere).

How is it compared to tobacco? No clue.

I have heard pipes with tobacco are worse then cigarettes in that aspect... but with tea? No clue.[/quote]
pipes with tobacco are better or worse than cigarettes depending on how one smokes them; one is not supposed to inhale a pipe but merely puff it (the smoke is heavier and so, if inhaled, would be worse than inhaled cigarette smoke to some degree)... pipe tobacco does not have the same types of chemicals added to it that cigarettes do, there is no rat poison or fiberglass, just tobacco and oftentimes some flavoring. studies have been done which have shown no increase in mortality rates for those who smoke pipes moderately and do not inhale... pipes are, on the whole, much better than cigarettes in nearly all respects when smoked properly; from health to the cultural context surrounding them.

and as regards the vanity thing? all forms of self expression are not necessarily vanity; I do not like the way it makes me look to others, I like the way it expresses myself. the same way I like my hat as an expression of myself. come now, we are not puritans here, we are Catholics.

and the G.K. Chesterton thing was just trying to answer from where I got the idea to smoke a pipe.

[Aloysius]

[url="http://www.reason.com/news/show/29471.html"]http://www.reason.com/news/show/29471.html[/url]

[quote]An article in the Summer 1990 issue of The Compleat Smoker describes an interesting longevity study conducted in Pennsylvania during the late '60s and early '70s. An organization called No Other World performed the research[b] with the assistance of the Northwestern Pennsylvania Lung Association and regional chapters of the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association[/b]. "In the study," reports The Compleat Smoker, "pipe smokers attained an average age of 78--two years older than their non-smoking male counterparts." This may say something about the stress-reducing benefits of pipe smoking. At the very least, it suggests that moderate pipe smoking is not a significant health hazard.[/quote]

this particular study singled out moderate pipe smokers who do not inhale; I know of no other study since which has singled out this factors, but this particular study was done in conjunction with the American Cancer Society and was not just some willy nilly thing; I do not believe the extra longevity to be necessarily indicative of health benefits, per se, since there's such a small margin for error, but I do know that stress kills an awful lot of people and pipe smoking is a very relaxing and enjoyable thing.

[Aloysius]

anyway, as I said, I've had plenty of smoking debates here, you can do a search if you're interested in such a debate...

here I want to discuss what anyone knows about the nature of peppermint leaves and chamomile smoked in a pipe...

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1815449' date='Mar 24 2009, 10:49 AM']pipes with tobacco are better or worse than cigarettes depending on how one smokes them; one is not supposed to inhale a pipe but merely puff it (the smoke is heavier and so, if inhaled, would be worse than inhaled cigarette smoke to some degree)... pipe tobacco does not have the same types of chemicals added to it that cigarettes do, there is no rat poison or fiberglass, just tobacco and oftentimes some flavoring. studies have been done which have shown no increase in mortality rates for those who smoke pipes moderately and do not inhale... pipes are, on the whole, much better than cigarettes in nearly all respects when smoked properly; from health to the cultural context surrounding them.[/quote]

I was including inhalation, as some people do inhale (except Clinton)

Anyway, I didn't want to debate, just answering the question on if smoke has carcinogens in it (and it does, regardless of the cause of the smoke).

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1815347' date='Mar 24 2009, 12:06 AM']Probably still an increased risk of mouth cancer, on the health side of it.

On the cool side of things, you're awesome.
In my life I've only ever seen people smoking pipes in public twice.

I'll never do it, but I'll say this: it's preferable to that cigarette smell.

How about trying to smoke incense? I'm only half kidding. Or one-third.[/quote]

I smoke a pipe from time to time. I love it.

[cmotherofpirl]

[url="http://home.teleport.com/~howieb/smoking/smoke7.html"]http://home.teleport.com/~howieb/smoking/smoke7.html[/url]

[T-Bone _]

It would burn a lot hotter, as tea would be dry, while tobacco has some moisture in it. It might crack your pipe--try it in a corn cob one first.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='T-Bone _' post='1816256' date='Mar 25 2009, 01:12 PM']It would burn a lot hotter, as tea would be dry, while tobacco has some moisture in it. It might crack your pipe--try it in a corn cob one first.[/quote]
You could steam the tea bags first. Might even release a bit more flavour.

[Old_Joe]

Have you tried smoking:

bacon
salmon
coagulated milk
turkey
chicken
pork
brisket
vegetables

[Lounge Daddy]

When I was in high school, I stuck a wad of coffee in my lip. "Dipping" coffee gave me a huge caffeine buzz. As I recall, it was like drinking half a pot of coffee in one sitting.

Never did it again though. It made my heart race like crazy. But that would be an alternative to tobacco.

[Lounge Daddy]

I just bookmarked the article that C'Mom linked to.

[Nihil Obstat]

Lol, coffee grounds in a pipe would be interesting.

Or espresso.

[Didymus]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1816720' date='Mar 25 2009, 11:50 PM']When I was in high school, I stuck a wad of coffee in my lip. "Dipping" coffee gave me a huge caffeine buzz. As I recall, it was like drinking half a pot of coffee in one sitting.

Never did it again though. It made my heart race like crazy. But that would be an alternative to tobacco.[/quote]


NICE!! was this just ground beans or instant?

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1816741' date='Mar 26 2009, 12:10 AM']NICE!! was this just ground beans or instant?[/quote]
Gosh I cannot remember. hehe, it actually could well have been instant.

[missionseeker]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1815406' date='Mar 24 2009, 07:07 AM']He used to poo in a bucket in his dorm room. I think a pipe is an improvement. [/quote]

[Aloysius]

I think everyone needs a refresher course in WHY that was done, to prove an academic point about the concept of humanure: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanure"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanure[/url]

the COMPOST, which included many things including 'humanure', was completely sanitary, and it was used, it was true recycling. and I got an A in the class for it.

now let it be spoken of no more! this is about smoking new and awesome things...

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1816809' date='Mar 26 2009, 01:41 AM']I think everyone needs a refresher course in WHY that was done, to prove an academic point about the concept of humanure: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanure"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanure[/url]

the COMPOST, which included many things including 'humanure', was completely sanitary, and it was used, it was true recycling. and I got an A in the class for it.

now let it be spoken of no more! this is about smoking new and awesome things...[/quote]


Just don't smoke humanure... seriously. (I had to say that. I will speak of it no more... probably.)

[Ziggamafu]

I'm curious if anyone here knows how carcinogens are measured? If anyone does, my next question is if there are comparisons of the carcinogen levels of various common foods as compared to tobacco?

[url="http://www.michigandaily.com/content/scientists-study-carcinogen-levels-everyday-food"]For instance...[/url]

[url="http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/122937.php"]...and no more McChickens?[/url]

Finally, I'm especially curious about how the filtration process of a hookah affects the carcinogen levels of various smokes (and if various teas are inherently less harmful than tobacco)?

[HisChildForever]

Anyone who thinks that Hookah is a safe alternative to cigarettes should read this article:

[quote]Although many believe that the water in the hookah filters out all the "bad stuff" in the tobacco smoke, this isn't true. [b]According to a World Health Organization advisory, a typical one-hour session of hookah smoking exposes the user to 100 to 200 times the volume of smoke inhaled from a single cigarette.[/b] Even after passing through water, tobacco smoke still contains high levels of toxic compounds, including carbon monoxide, heavy metals and cancer-causing chemicals (carcinogens). Hookah smoking also delivers significant levels of nicotine — the addictive substance in tobacco.[/quote]

[url="http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hookah/AN01265"]http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hookah/AN01265[/url]

[b]Cigar And Pipe Smoking Are As Dangerous As Cigarettes To Periodontal Health:[/b]

[url="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/01/010105080116.htm"]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/...10105080116.htm[/url]

Edited March 26, 2009 by HisChildForever

[Aloysius]

that study on hookah smoking is extremely misleading. This is the only study to date to look at the issue of hookah and cancer issues:

[url="http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/5/1/19"]http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/5/1/19[/url]

[quote]We have recently published some work on CEA [carcinoembryonic antigen] levels in hookah (also called narghile, shisha elsewhere) and cigarette smokers. Hookah smokers had higher levels of CEA than non-smokers although [b]mean levels were low compared to cigarette smokers.[/b] However some of them were also users of other tobacco products (cigarettes, bidis, etc.).[/quote]

[quote]The overall CEA levels in exclusive hookah smokers (mean: 3.58 ± 2.61 ng/ml; n = 59) were not significantly different (p ≤ 0.0937) from the levels in non-smokers (2.35 ± 0.71 ng/ml). Mean levels in light, medium and heavy smokers were: 1.06 ± 0.492 ng/ml (n = 5); 2.52 ± 1.15 ng/ml (n = 28) and 5.11 ± 3.08 ng/ml (n = 26) respectively. The levels in medium smokers and non-smokers were also not significantly different (p ≤ 0.9138). In heavy smokers, the CEA levels were significantly higher than in non-smokers (p ≤ 0.0001567).[/quote]

'getting the same amount of smoke' doesn't mean getting the same problems. no tar is added to the shisha, and tar levels are very low due to the way the shisha is heated rather than directly burned and how it is filtered through water. the amount of smoke may be comparable, but the type of smoke is significantly different, and this study showed much less problems.

as regards pipe and cigar smoking: again, show me a study which singles out [b]moderate[/b] pipe and/or cigar smoking of [b]non-inhalers[/b]. but anyway, yes, I recognize that there are health risks mainly for the mouth, including teeth; I have some special tobacco-geared mouth wash (claims to remove tar from teeth) myself and only smoke moderately... and then again, there seem to be no studies I know of about herbal smoke from pipes (which is the real topic of this thread)