Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

(post is archived)

[–] • 2 pts

Jokes aside- I recall the oldest woman in the world (about 15-20 years ago, at least, she's probably passed by now) would eat precisely one chocolate piece every day. She was also a lifelong smoker, and enjoyed some wine on occasion.

I'm convinced that anything the government tries to push as "bad and you shouldn't do it" is actually good for you. Smoking, for example- the government, state and federal, took such huge role in pushing anti-tobacco propaganda. Why?

Turns out there are a lot of benefits to nicotine usage. A young person exposed to nicotine during their early teens can actually become permanently smarter through some nicotine voodoo. "But it stunts your growth!", they said- yeah, the only growth I've seen smoking stunt is fat. I'm several inches over 6 feet tall, despite taking up smoking as a teenager. I'm also smarter than you, so I am living proof that smoking is good for you.

There's probably a point where it becomes harmful- like chain smoking probably isn't good for you anymore. And perhaps a different delivery method of nicotine would reduce potential harm. But I have absolutely zero trust in the government anymore, so if they say something is good for me- it must be terrible for me, and vise versa.

[–] • 0 pt

Sucking in smoke of any kind is not good for your lungs and makes you cough. That's just common sense.

[–] • 0 pt

Of course, I should've phrased my comment differently- I specifically meant the usage of nicotine. The most common method of taking nicotine is smoking, the government got behind all of the anti-smoking shit for a variety of reasons (money is a big one, of course), but I think they also didn't want the positive effects of nicotine to be widely known. Post is also a little sarcastic, I just really distrust the government so if they said "not cutting your dick off is bad for you", I might briefly consider cutting my dick off.

But yeah inhaling particles from something that is on fire is almost always harmful, but if it's just a little bit here and there, it's no different from being gathered around a fire every night, or living in a small city.

[–] • 1 pt

Strange how some people can smoke for 75 years and not die but others can get lung cancer after only 10 years.

[–] • 2 pts

City vs rural living has a lot to do with it, besides genetic predispositions.

I'm sure modern cigs with 1001 additives (for everyone's safety) aren't to be overlooked either, compared to lets say all natural & untaxed injun cigs.

[–] • 2 pts

Yeah. They say it’s from combustion of the tobacco, but people used to smoke like chimneys and be fine. Then they poisoned the cigarettes as another one of their population control methods. It backfired on them when everyone found out that smoking was killing people.

It couldn’t be the fiberglass/asbestos filters, flame retardant, chemicals to make it keep burning and burning evenly, bleached paper, and who knows what.

[–] • 1 pt

Yeah weird, almost like there is no single cause of cancer- almost like cancer (and most other diseases) are caused by a combination of practically countless variables.

That 100 year-old chain smoker might have lungs that are "fine" for their age. But the other 100 year-old chain smoker has all kinds of cancers. Only one of them worked in a building filled with asbestos- can you guess which one it probably was?

[–] • 1 pt

Yeah George Burns lived to be 100 years old born in 1896 he probably smoke for 90 years and meanwhile a 12 year old kid who's healthy gets cancer

[–] • 0 pt

Sparking the Crackpipe of Life.