Smoking and Soda Pop

[Tenet Nosce]

So I used to be a smoker. Currently, I still on occasion use tobacco. Say 1-3 times a month. To my health insurance company, I am still classified as a "smoker". But that's beside the point.

We all know that smoking tobacco isn't good for our health. But what about soda pop?

Here is a little thought experiment:

Put a cigarette and a can of soda pop in front of your average American and ask them which is worse for one's health. I imagine they would will nearly all say the cigarette.

Now put a pack of cigarettes and 20 soda pops on the table. Ask the question: after one year of either smoking a pack a day, or drinking 20 soda pops a day, which behavior would have the most detrimental impact on one's health?

I submit it is the soda pop. Now assuming this is the case (I will admit that nobody has done this study and therefore nobody can claim to officially "know") WHY is it that it has become so popular to demonize smokers, while it is fine for McDonald's to advertise $1 "any size" soda pops on billboards?

For additional discussion: Did anybody else take notice back in the 80s when there was that big expose of the tobacco industry, where some of the executives admitted to putting additives in cigarettes in order to increase their addictiveness, that shortly afterwards Philip Morris bought Kraft and RJ Reynolds bought Nabisco?

[C-JEAN]

Hi T.N.

. . .WHY is it that it has become so popular to demonize smokers, while it is fine for McDonald's to advertise $1 "any size" soda pops on billboards?

As they always say:
FOLLOW THE MONEY !! B-)

Just check where a big portion of the FDA's staff comes from ! ? !
Just check where the money comes from for "those"
who make the _so called_ "tests" ?!
Just check where the money to newspapers and TV comes from !?!
Just FOLLOW THE MONEY and you will have your AN$WER$ !! B-)

I learned that on the abovetopsecret site !!

Blue skies.

[AnthroHeart]

I don't smoke nor drink soda. But I'll drink tea, sometimes 32oz a day. That's still a lot of sugar.

[Sagittarius]

So I used to be a smoker. Currently, I still on occasion use tobacco. Say 1-3 times a month. To my health insurance company, I am still classified as a "smoker". But that's beside the point.

We all know that smoking tobacco isn't good for our health. But what about soda pop?

Here is a little thought experiment:

Put a cigarette and a can of soda pop in front of your average American and ask them which is worse for one's health. I imagine they would will nearly all say the cigarette.

Now put a pack of cigarettes and 20 soda pops on the table. Ask the question: after one year of either smoking a pack a day, or drinking 20 soda pops a day, which behavior would have the most detrimental impact on one's health?

I submit it is the soda pop. Now assuming this is the case (I will admit that nobody has done this study and therefore nobody can claim to officially "know") WHY is it that it has become so popular to demonize smokers, while it is fine for McDonald's to advertise $1 "any size" soda pops on billboards?

For additional discussion: Did anybody else take notice back in the 80s when there was that big expose of the tobacco industry, where some of the executives admitted to putting additives in cigarettes in order to increase their addictiveness, that shortly afterwards Philip Morris bought Kraft and RJ Reynolds bought Nabisco?

I think it is because tobacco is a mild hallucinogenic, shamans used to smoke to help them access higher consciousness. I have noticed most smokers are more introverted in nature, having that 10 minute break where you can just relax and think in a working day is very helpful.

I use smoking in the same way tbh, it focuses my mind and helps me relax into a state where thoughts flow. In saying that I can already feel there will be a time it will turn into a catalyst for letting go, when that happens I will let it go.

I have tried a few times to get certain tobbaco plants from South America which are much stronger and have a heightened psychoactive effect but to no avail. You would think I'am trying to import plutonium or something.

[zenmaster]

Now put a pack of cigarettes and 20 soda pops on the table. Ask the question: after one year of either smoking a pack a day, or drinking 20 soda pops a day, which behavior would have the most detrimental impact on one's health?

That's 1.875 gallons of soda per day (coca cola)
780-810g of sugar
2280 calories (all from sugar)
(Also 679.2 mgs of caffeine which is like 5 cups of coffee)

"According to dieticians, women should not have more than 24 grams of sugar a day, or about 6 teaspoons. For men it’s about 36 grams, or 9 teaspoons."

"The maximum safe amount of added sugar is about 62 grams per day. That is the average of the Canadian FDA, British FDA, USDA, and the American Diabetes Association."

"An overdose of sugar. Eating or drinking 100 grams (8 tbsp.) of sugar, the equivalent of two- and-a-half 12-ounce cans of soda, can reduce the ability of white blood cells to kill germs by 40 percent. The immune-suppressing effect of sugar starts less than thirty minutes after ingestion and may last for five hours. In contrast, the ingestion of complex carbohydrates, or starches, has no effect on the immune system. "
http://www.askdrsears.com/html/4/T045000.asp

"Diana Jalal, MD (University of Colorado Denver Health Sciences Center), and her colleagues studied the issue in a large representative population of US adults. They examined 4,528 adults 18 years of age or older with no prior history of hypertension. Fructose intake was calculated based on a dietary questionnaire, and foods such as fruit juices, soft drinks, bakery products, and candy were included. Dr. Jalal's team found that people who ate or drank more than 74 grams per day of fructose (2.5 sugary soft drinks per day) increased their risk of developing hypertension. Specifically, a diet of more than 74 grams per day of fructose led to a 28%, 36%, and 87% higher risk for blood pressure levels of 135/85, 140/90, and 160/100 mmHg, respectively. (A normal blood pressure reading is below 120/80 mmHg.)

"These results indicate that high fructose intake in the form of added sugars is significantly and independently associated with higher blood pressure levels in the US adult population with no previous history of hypertension," the authors concluded. Additional studies are needed to see if low fructose diets can normalize blood pressure and prevent the development of hypertension." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...211521.htm

And you're suggesting an order of magnitude higher dose per day?

[Oldern]

Uhm, are we missing the obvious here?
Which is: if one smokes, the smoke affects others around him/her.
If one drinks soda with excess amounts of sugar, it is personal catalyst.

[zenmaster]

Uhm, are we missing the obvious here?
Which is: if one smokes, the smoke affects others around him/her.
If one drinks soda with excess amounts of sugar, it is personal catalyst.

In general due to are already weakened body state here, any health degradation necessarily affects others. So it's both personal and collective catalyst. In fact, the sugar toxicity could very well be the larger imposition or constraint on others. For example, what we might think of as mild disabilities related to mental-processing impairments, mood disorders, attitude, and the physical ailments which increase dependency, demand compensation, and decrease freedom are a very large part of interpersonal and collective catalyst here.

[Tenet Nosce]

And you're suggesting an order of magnitude higher dose per day?

Sometimes it takes an absurd example to make a point. Otherwise people tend to stay firm in their denial. Many still do.

So it should be clear then that, unit for unit, a can of coca-cola is MUCH worse for one's health than a cigarette.

... and yet...

Tobacco is highly controlled and illegal for anybody under 18 to possess.
Soda pop is ubiquitous and marketed directly to children.

The masses applaud any attempt to further tax or control tobacco.
The masses are outraged when they try to control soda pop in NYC.

Most would be appalled if a parent offered their child a cigarette.
Parents regularly use soda pop as a reward or bribe for good behavior.

It is has become taboo to even question how harmful tobacco actually is to health.
Negative health claims about sugar and soda pop are regularly poo-pooed by the public.

Many "lightworkers" shun tobacco use because it "lowers their vibration".
Yet amongst many of the same, sugar consumption is still rampant.

... and on and on...

Is the point of my posting this to let kids smoke cigarettes? No.
Is the point of my posting this to outlaw soda pop? No.

The point of my posting this is to draw a stark example of the type of brain massaging and mental manipulation which occurs, even amongst those of us who consider ourselves "free thinkers".

Often times, when something appears to be a "no brainer", that's literally and exactly what it is.

---

Uhm, are we missing the obvious here?

No, I purposely left that out so as to discuss the effects on personal health.

Which is: if one smokes, the smoke affects others around him/her.
If one drinks soda with excess amounts of sugar, it is personal catalyst.

But since you brought it up... what kind of catalyst would you say it is it when a parent allows, even encourages, their child to consume massive amounts of sugar? Or regularly eats like crap in their presence?

[zenmaster]

I think it is actually very common to create absurd examples, in the form of exaggerations. Otherwise our bias is not given sufficient energy in order for it to be reflected back to our attention in some form.

[Monica]

Soda is bad on so many levels. Most people think it's because of the sugar. Yes, that's bad, and the aspartame in diet sodas is even worse.

But probably the worst thing about soda is its extreme acidity. This creates an environment in the body in which cancer thrives. In my business (alkalizing) we call it 'cancer in a can'!

[zenmaster]

Yeah but 'cancer in a can' is yet another overly zealous depiction, crafted for sensational effect (which we really don't need more of here). I don't lend much credence to exaggerations like that, because it is a good indication of laziness and lack of honesty.

[Monica]

Put a cigarette and a can of soda pop in front of your average American and ask them which is worse for one's health. I imagine they would will nearly all say the cigarette.

Now put a pack of cigarettes and 20 soda pops on the table. Ask the question: after one year of either smoking a pack a day, or drinking 20 soda pops a day, which behavior would have the most detrimental impact on one's health?

I submit it is the soda pop.

As bad as soda is - unquestionably a major contributing factor to the epidemic of childhood cancer, diabetes etc. - I'd have to still say the cigs. This is based purely on my experiences in dealing with people who smoke vs those who drink sodas.

When I give ionized water to people, they tend to get some detox the first few days. People who drink sodas are told to quit, or they'll be wasting their time and mine, since sodas and alkaline water are at opposite ends of the pH spectrum and just cancel each other out. So I tell them they must give up sodas 100%, and not cheat at all. Even 1/2 of a soda once a week will derail their results from the water.

Most of the people I meet are soda drinkers, some more so than others. Yet, most of those people have very mild detox. More frequent trips to the bathroom, etc...the usual.

But it's the ones who are on meds, and the ones who smoke cigs, that have the intense detox! These people get sick and have to take it really slow with the water, lest they detox too fast. The worst I've seen were the people on arthritis meds - man that stuff must be really heavy-duty! and the cigarette smokers. These people must have a very heavy load of toxins in their cells because when the water starts doing its work and flushes out the cells, wow, they have some intense detox.

So, based on this observation, I'd say that soda is probably just as dangerous, but because of a different mechanism. It's dangerous because it makes the body acidic. (In addition to neurological damage from aspartame, in the case of the diet sodas.) But acidity can be reversed very quickly, sometimes in a matter of a few days, or a few weeks at most. Whereas, cigarettes (and meds) are dangerous because they leave a toxic, sticky residue of chemical cocktails, that must be cleansed out of the cells.

The so-called 'natural' cigs seem to be less harmful. I had a lady try the water who smoked 'organic' cigs and she had very mild detox. I was surprised at her lack of detox until she told me what kind of cigs she smoked; then it made sense.

As a side note, whenever anyone criticized me for not giving my son soda or candy when he was a child, as though I were guilty of depriving him from the pleasures of childhood, I would always reply "Well I didn't give him cigarettes either."

---

Tobacco is highly controlled and illegal for anybody under 18 to possess.
Soda pop is ubiquitous and marketed directly to children.

The masses applaud any attempt to further tax or control tobacco.
The masses are outraged when they try to control soda pop in NYC.

Most would be appalled if a parent offered their child a cigarette.
Parents regularly use soda pop as a reward or bribe for good behavior.

It is has become taboo to even question how harmful tobacco actually is to health.
Negative health claims about sugar and soda pop are regularly poo-pooed by the public.

Many "lightworkers" shun tobacco use because it "lowers their vibration".
Yet amongst many of the same, sugar consumption is still rampant.

... and on and on...

Is the point of my posting this to let kids smoke cigarettes? No.
Is the point of my posting this to outlaw soda pop? No.

The point of my posting this is to draw a stark example of the type of brain massaging and mental manipulation which occurs, even amongst those of us who consider ourselves "free thinkers".

I see your point and agree 100%. It's outrageous, really.

[Tenet Nosce]

The so-called 'natural' cigs seem to be less harmful. I had a lady try the water who smoked 'organic' cigs and she had very mild detox. I was surprised at her lack of detox until she told me what kind of cigs she smoked; then it made sense.

I would say at least 95% of the cigarettes I ever smoked were additive-free. And I never experienced withdrawals or detox symptoms when I stepped away from them. In fact- the lack of these has been part of the problem in getting me to convince myself to give them up altogether! Also- a half-pack in a day would have been some pretty heavy smoking by my standards. I don't even know how people smoke more than that... you would have to pretty much be chain smoking all day every day!

[Monica]

Yeah but 'cancer in a can' is yet another overly zealous depiction, crafted for sensational effect (which we really don't need more of here). I don't lend much credence to exaggerations like that, because it is a good indication of laziness and lack of honesty.

I'll choose to not get offended by your crass comments and instead back up my statement.

It was proven back in 1931 that cancer can live only in an anaerobic (acidic) environment. Dr. Otto Warburg won the Nobel Prize and his findings have never been refuted. The body is supposed to run between 7 and 7.5, according to many health practitioners (some of whom report astounding results with advanced stage cancer patients, by helping them alkalize their bodily tissues.) Cancer patients typically test in the 5 range. Advanced-stage cancer patients test at around 4.5 pH. Cancerous tissue is extremely acidic. That has been proven and isn't disputable. (The implications may be disputable, but the tangible evidence of the pH of cancerous tumors isn't disputable.)

Soda is extremely acidic - as low as 2.5 pH. Keep in mind that the pH scale is logarithmic, so it multiplies by a factor of 10 each time you go up a point.

Thus, a soda is 100,000 times more acidic than neutral. Um, that's kinda...huge, wouldn't ya say?

That's not even taking into consideration the effects of the refined sugar and/or aspartame, both of which have been linked to cancer.

So no, it's not an exaggeration at all to call it 'cancer in a can' nor is it sensationalistic. If it captures someone's attention and gets them to think about it (after they get over their defensiveness) then it can be a service and might even trigger a change in direction for them.

---

I would say at least 95% of the cigarettes I ever smoked were additive-free. And I never experienced withdrawals or detox symptoms when I stepped away from them. In fact- the lack of these has been part of the problem in getting me to convince myself to give them up altogether! Also- a half-pack in a day would have been some pretty heavy smoking by my standards. I don't even know how people smoke more than that... you would have to pretty much be chain smoking all day every day!

Yeah...just as I can't fathom consuming 6 tsp of sugar!

Apparently, most of the toxicity is from the additives, not the tobacco itself. I get a raging headache anytime I'm around cig smoke, but I didn't get a headache when I visited the woman who smoked organic cigs. I almost left when I smelled the smoke in her house - I went there to install a loaner machine for her to try the water and almost walked right back out. But I didn't. I decided to stick it out and pop a Tylenol later if necessary - something I almost never do - rather than remove her opportunity to better her health with the water.

Later, I was surprised that I didn't have a headache! It wasn't until weeks later that she told me she only smoked organic cigs. I found this very telling!

By the way, the detox I was describing wasn't from quitting. These people didn't quit smoking. The detox was a cellular detox from drinking the water.

Interestingly, marijuana smoke has never been linked to lung cancer like cig smoke is. I always thought that didn't make any sense, since smoke is smoke, right? Plus, pot smoke has more tar. So it should, theoretically, cause more lung trouble than cig smoke, one would think. Yet that's not the case.

I guess it's because it doesn't have the additives.

But, recently there have been some links to other problems. I don't remember what they were exactly, since I only glanced over the article and it wasn't really relevant to me. But I remember something about today's designer weed being grown with pesticides and it's now causing problems that didn't exist with the old, organic weed we had growing up.

[Oceania]

I don't smoke nor drink soda. But I'll drink tea, sometimes 32oz a day. That's still a lot of sugar.

use honey instead. i actually like tea without sugar.

Tenet great post. i'd say soda is equally bad to cigarettes. but both are nice to have moderately.

[Tenet Nosce]

Yeah...just as I can't fathom consuming 6 tsp of sugar!

According to my professional opinion, daily sugar consumption should be limited to 45 grams, which is equivalent to 3 tablespoons, or 9 teaspoons.
But that includes fruit sugar, of which there is about 15 grams per cup fruit or 1/2 cup juice. Plus, I recommend no more than 15 grams at a time.

Apparently, most of the toxicity is from the additives, not the tobacco itself.

I wouldn't be surprised. At the least, we must concede that all the studies done on tobacco were done on the kind with additives. In addition, we did not control for diet or prescreen participants to ensure their detox pathways were functioning properly.

Interestingly, marijuana smoke has never been linked to lung cancer like cig smoke is. I always thought that didn't make any sense, since smoke is smoke, right? Plus, pot smoke has more tar. So it should, theoretically, cause more lung trouble than cig smoke, one would think. Yet that's not the case.

I think that is a very poignant observation, which tends to get ignored. The most I can say with respect to this is that human beings, up until the last century or so, have lived around a LOT of smoke. So it would stand to reason that we have evolved effective mechanisms to deal with a fair amount of smoke exposure. What we HAVEN'T lived around, again up until the last century or so, was massive amounts of sugar.

Not saying smoke is GOOD for our health, by any means. Although- there is a little known, but very interesting, theory out there called mitohormesis. In a nutshell, it posits that small, regular, doses of toxins are actually good for our health. Believe it or not, some of the support for this idea has actually come from exercise science as we know that heavy aerobic exercise causes a transient increase in free radical production.

[April]

Well smoking is a really bad habit and know one should be addicted to this bad habit. Smoking is the main reason of lungs cancer and not only lungs cancer it also can effect on our respiratory system, circulatory system, immune system etc. its smoke is not only dangerous for smokers it also can be a reason of cancer for someone else with passive smoking.