This former drill sergeant, who smoked since age 7, ran and completed recently London marathon at age 101, smoking few while running:
It will surprise many (in these days of intense antismoking brainwashing), but this is not some kind of fluke. Over the last five decades many animal experiments were done all showing that lifelong smoking animals, from hamsters and mice to dogs and monkeys, live longer and in better health than non-smoking animals. This despite the often heavy and unnatural smoking conditions such as 5+ packs a day concentrated into 6 hour daily smoke exposures, with concentration at the very edge of asphyxiation - yet smoking animals still end up living by ~20% longer, while remaining thinner and sharper throughout.
Intense research, mostly funded by the same pharmaceutical industry which funds (having created them) most of antismoking groups, laws and propaganda, has uncovered numerous concrete biochemical mechanisms by which tobacco smoke accomplishes these life and youth extending effects. Like the above animal experiments, you will never hear about any of this in the mainstream media, although it is all available in the scientific papers published over last few decades.
If you wish to follow the white rabbit a bit deeper and get glimpse at the upcoming smoking heresy, there is much more info with numerous scientific references in a recent thread in imminst.org forum (life-extension, nootropics, health) titled, of of all things:
which I started. As expected, the pandemonium broke lose when all these medically & scientifically well educated health fanatics jumped in to refute the claims (many members are grad students & researchers in biological & medical fields).
Yet, each paper they brought up in support of their antismoking position either backfired (showing upon closer inspection that the findings were exactly the opposite than what they appeared to be from the paper abstracts) or it didn't show anything at all (the usual antismoking junk science). Watch them squirm as all the _hard_ science (experiments, lab analysis) kept going the "wrong" way.
Here are some highlights of the "debate" (no contest actually, it wasn't even close; I post as "nightlight"):
1. Dogs exposed to radon or radon+smoke: 5% of smoking dogs and 37% of non-smoking dogs got lung cancers. link
2. Massive National Cancer Institute sponsored experiments that backfired terribly, setting back the NCI's workplace smoking bans agenda for more than a decade. link
3. The crowning experiments (2004, 2005) of six decades of antismoking "science", the pinnacle -- again backfired badly, as they always do -- at the end, more than twice as many smoking animals alive than non-smoking ones. link
4. Self-medication with tobacco link
5. Common genes for lung cancer & smoking link
(R.A. Fisher suspected this to be the case in 1950s, he also suggested self-medication possibility, see page 163, where he compares taking cigarettes away from some poor chap to taking the walking stick from a blind man.) pdf
6. Hazards of quitting (triggers lung cancers in animal experiments) link
7. Emphysema/COPD - smoking protective rather than cause link
8. How does antismoking "science" lie with stats (how to "prove" that -- Prozac causes depression -- using the master method of antismoking "science") link
9. Heart attacks from SHS myths (a 'friend saying Boo' is more "hazardous" for your heart than SHS) link
10. Glycotoxins/AGE in tobacco smoke -- backfires badly link
11. Smoking protects against cancers (reversal of values in cancer state and another common sleight of hand), Smoking vs Caloric Restrictions (and on fundamental wrong-headedness of CR) link
12. More on anti-carcinogenicity of tobacco smoke and how to translate Orwellian antismoking "science" to real science link
13. ** why take a chance
14. Smoking and diabetes, insulin sensitivity -- another "proof" backfires link
15. How to "prove" that 'Lifting weights is harmful for muscles' - pinhole vision sleight of hand of antismoking "science" illustrated link
16. Oxidative stress, breast cancer, "randomizing non-randomized variables" sleight of hand -- more antismoking junk science claims turned upside-down by facts of hard science link
17. Can one replicate the health benefits of tobacco smoke (the short list given) using supplements and pharmaceuticals? Even if it were possible, can one do it for < $1 day (cost for a pack of roll-your-own cigarettes with natural, additive free tobacco)? "link
18. Who knows more about biochemistry of life and its molecular engineering -- one little cell in your little toe or all the biochemists and molecular biologists in the world taken together? Is "Sickness Industry" good for your health? link
Actually I had fewer colds when I smoked but did have some coughing with certain brands.
Started with Lucky Strike and ended with those long thin cigs with dark paper.
Can’t remember the name.
Reference bump - least I’ll die happy! ;-)