# Actual Freedom ~ Frequently Asked Questions Frequently Asked Questions ## Why do you Drink Coffee and Smoke Cigarettes? RESPONDENT: Could you clear something up for me? This is something I don’t understand. When you talk of being sensate based I start judging, specifically then how can he possibly smoke cigarettes or drink coffee. Please, these are not moral pronouncements as I do the same on occasion. I start thinking that this is evidence that you have an identity because if you just lived by the sensate based needs of the body there is no way the body would want those substances. RICHARD: Well I only drink decaffeinated coffee so the question is basically about smoking tobacco (I am a complete teetotaller in all other respects as I take no mood-enhancing or mind-altering substances whatsoever ... not even chocolate). I have been asked this question before and will refer you to the following link: (Richard, List B, James2, 23 August 2001). Suffice is it to say here that I drink coffee and smoke tobacco because I find them both to be a delightful pastime ... I thoroughly enjoy the entire ritual: the grinding of the beans with its accompanying aroma; the measuring of the grounds into the filter-holder of the espresso machine; the watching of the crema form in the cup as it fills; the adding of just the requisite quantity of thickened cream (yes I also take in cream); the supping of that first exquisite sip with the appropriate sigh of approval; the opening of the tobacco pouch and the inhaling of its aroma; the extracting of a paper and the placing it upon the lip; the sorting out of the strings of tobacco; the rolling of the perfectly shaped cigarette; the tucking-in of the ends and the striking of the match with its accompanying splutter of ignition; the inhaling of that first puff; the taking of the second sip of coffee ... and so on and so on. Incidentally, I also eat meat (mainly seafood and fowl but occasionally pork, lamb and beef); I do not cook (I either eat out or order in); I have an active sex-life and enjoy female company; I lead an indolent life-style (which is way past a sedentary life-style); I live in suburbia with all the mod cons that a consumer society provides; I only have one meal a day (plus a few water-crackers with cheese for supper); I sleep three maybe four hours a night and cat-nap during the day; I watch a lot of television and spend considerable time in front of the computer; I do not go to parties, bars, dances and so on or belong to any public organisation or club; I do not play sport or watch any sporting events ... to cut a long story short I live a certain life-style and do certain things that various other people may find unhealthy for whatever reason. RESPONDENT: There is something I am curious about Richard. You say that you are a flesh and blood body only which I agree with. I was wondering why you smoke when you know the facts about the harm that smoking does to the flesh and blood body? RICHARD: And just what are the ‘facts’ that you are referring to? As far as I can ascertain there has never been a scientific study done – random sampling, control group, double-blind testing and so on – and that all the furore (sometimes reminiscent of a witch-hunt) depends upon somewhat skewed statistical evidence. I say ‘skewed’ because if I were to die tomorrow my death would be added to the statistics irregardless of the actual cause (in case you have not noticed that people no longer die of ‘old age’ anymore). Neither am I saying that smoking is good thing[*] ... just that it is not as bad as it is made out to be. Incidentally, when tobacco was first introduced into Europe the Church demonised it (calling it the Devil’s Weed) just as the early coffee-houses were vilified. • [Editorial Note; 14 May 2023]: What Richard had in mind when he wrote “Neither am I saying that smoking is good thing” was the total absence of anything even remotely nutritional involved with tobacco usage – unlike partaking of beer and/or ale, for instance, or tea and/or coffee (with sugar and milk/ cream), for example, which do have some degree of nutritional value – as he was not cognisant, in August 2001, of what the word “niacin” in Vitamin B₃ referred to ... namely: nicotinic acid. Please note, this is not to suggest tobacco use be a suitable source for the recommended 16 mg/day (adult males) 14 mg/day (adult females) ingestion of nicotinic acid a.k.a. niacin, for conversion within the body to nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (which is required for human life and needs to be obtained through suitable dietary intake) but, rather, how it is a salutary lesson about researching a subject thoroughly before reaching for the keyboard. (Incidentally, although both nicotinic acid (a.k.a. niacin) and niacinamide (a.k.a. nicotinamide) were known to be forms or vitamers of the B₃ complex it was not until 2004 that nicotinamide riboside was identified as also being a B₃ vitamer). I mention this because some 12-13 years ago I availed myself of the statistics published by various anti-smoking groups and did the necessary sums. The result showed that 1.2% of all smokers in any given year (at that time) died of what is called ‘smoking-related diseases’ ... which means that 98.8% did not. There is also some preliminary indications that only certain people are genetically prone to developing carcinomas from smoke inhalation ... rather than it be a blanket death warrant per se. For an example, Mr. Pablo Picasso (who smoked most of his life) died at a similar age to Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti (who did not smoke at all). I also say ‘witch-hunt’ (as in ‘scape-goat’) because there is some evidence that the internal combustion engine could very well be causing far more illnesses among people – estimates vary between 42-48% of what is called ‘green houses gases’ are coming from exhaust fumes – and yet car ownership is on the increase and I am yet to see obligatory ‘driving kills’ warnings affixed to all vehicles. Curiously enough, in the last hundred years or so the average life expectancy in the West has risen from 50-55 years of age to 75-80 years of age (speaking from memory). I could go on and bring in examples of factoids masquerading as facts in other areas (the HIV-AIDS controversy, the cholesterol dispute, the monosodium glutamate debacle, the on again off again eggs/butter/sugar/etc. furphies) but maybe it will suffice to say that (a) I do not own or drive a car by choice ... and (b) I live in the country and not the city for obvious health reasons ... and (c) I am a teetotaller in all other respects (not even caffeine these days) ... and (d) I do not experience any stress or tension whatsoever (and I would hazard a guess that the last point is the most relevant point of all when it comes to a resilient immune-system). Most of what I have written here is opinion-only, of course. (for more on this subject click this link Richard, List B, No. 33j, 10 September 2002). RESPONDENT: You are either totally demented or smoking something besides nicotine – or maybe both. RICHARD: If you had read all of my response to the smoking question (Richard, List B, James2, 23 August 2001), instead of snipping it halfway, you would have the answer to your speculation about the ‘something else besides nicotine’ already. Viz.: • [Richard]: ‘I am a teetotaller in all other respects (not even caffeine these days)’. (Richard, List B, James2, 23 August 2001). RESPONDENT: By the way, nicotine addiction is the foremost drug addiction in the world. RICHARD: I have read reports that it can be as difficult an addiction for some people to break free of as, for example, heroin (I have no personal experience of heroin so I can only go by other people’s reports). I experienced no difficulty whatsoever the last time I ceased smoking ... I simply desisted. RESPONDENT: The craving for nicotine enslaves it victims for yet another and another and another hit. RICHARD: One of the benefits of an actual freedom from the human condition is that one is free from enslavement ... thus religio/spiritual ‘no-no’s (such as smoking tobacco, eating meat or dairy products, drinking tea/coffee, being sexually active, using physical force/restraint where applicable, living in comfort and/or luxury and so on) do not apply. If you apply the religio/spiritual yardstick you will, of course, find all manner of things to point the finger at. In the interests of having a someway reasonable discussion I would like to point out that I live in suburban comfort ... why then do you not see me as enslaved to social security, electricity, mail deliveries, garbage disposal, hot and cold running water, sewerage, refrigeration, television, washing machine, soft bedding, supermarkets, medicines, police protection, planes, trains, buses and taxis, paved roads and so on and so on (almost ad infinitum)? Is it because your particular trip is about meat, sex and tobacco? * RESPONDENT: Cigarette smoking is completely intolerable to a sensitive body, as is eating carrion. RICHARD: As the word ‘carrion’ (rotting or putrefying bodies) has a different meaning to the word ‘meat’ (the flesh of animals used as food, nourishment) are you interested in having a genuine discussion regarding enslavement, addictions and attachments so as to uncover one of the benefits of an actual freedom from the human condition ... the discovery of the intelligence which becomes apparent of its own accord upon freedom from prejudice (synonyms: prejudgement, preconception, predetermination, preconceived idea, preconceived notion)? Or is an authentic exploration into the appalling mess that is the human condition of no genuine concern to you? RESPONDENT: I would think that there has been enough medical evidence and common sense observation on the subject of cigarettes that it would not be necessary to try to prove that it is a bad habit. RICHARD: Oh ... you may not have noticed it but I have already said in another thread that I am not suggesting that smoking is necessarily a good thing. Just that it is not quite as bad as it is made out to be. RESPONDENT: An enlightened person would not want to be involved in something like this. RICHARD: In that case it is just as well that I am not an enlightened person ... although I have read that Mr. Maruti Nisargadatta both smoked tobacco and made a living out of selling it (which could possibly be construed in some camps as him being an enlightened drug-pusher). RESPONDENT: Any evidence you could provide to the contrary could be inundated with mass opposition from the other side. RICHARD: As we have already discussed these kind of matters some time ago I am well aware that you are from the ‘other side’. * RESPONDENT: Nicotine is a drug with side effects. RICHARD: Virtually all drugs have ‘side effects’ ... and not just drugs: there is some evidence that the internal combustion engine could very well be causing far more illnesses among people – estimates vary between 42-48% of what is called ‘green houses gases’ are coming from exhaust fumes – and yet car ownership is on the increase and I am yet to see obligatory ‘driving kills’ warnings affixed to all vehicles. Curiously enough, in the last hundred years or so the average life expectancy in the West has risen from 50-55 years of age to 75-80 years of age (speaking from memory). RESPONDENT: The negative health aspects have been proven sufficiently over and over again and are stated plainly on the package. RICHARD: As far as I can ascertain there has never been a scientific study done – random sampling, control group, double-blind testing and so on – and that all the furore (sometimes reminiscent of a witch-hunt) depends upon somewhat skewed statistical evidence. I say ‘skewed’ because if I were to die tomorrow my death would be added to the statistics irregardless of the actual cause (in case you have not noticed that people no longer die of ‘old age’ anymore). RESPONDENT: The only reason to smoke is to indulge in the pleasure of the drug effect or to steady the nerves. RICHARD: Speaking personally, I never need to ‘steady the nerves’ . As for ‘indulge in the pleasure’ ... why are you against pleasure? I do recall that when tobacco was first introduced into Europe the Church demonised it (calling it the Devil’s Weed) ... the same as the early coffee-houses were vilified. Just for the record ... which side are you on regarding caffeine? RESPONDENT: Pleasure is heightened when there is pain to be relieved, and without pain I don’t think cigarettes would be pleasurable. RICHARD: The only pain I can ever experience is physical pain ... and nicotine does zilch to ameliorate that. KONRAD: Do you know, why it is so difficult to stop smoking? RICHARD: I stopped smoking for five years back in 1979 ... and it was very easy. The physical withdrawal symptoms only lasted for three days and were not much of a problem at all ... after that it was down-hill all the way. KONRAD: This is because smoking is a way to redirect your attention to something pleasant when you feel stress. Whenever there is stress, you can focus your attention to smoking. At a certain point this focusing to smoking in a stress situation becomes so automatic, that the stress not even enters consciousness. This is the principle of addiction. The particular thing you are addicted to does not matter. Only its capacity to redirect attention from suffering is important. Some means are better than others, and some are outlawed, while others are not. Still, the principle is the same. RICHARD: And if there is no stress – ever – in your life? Where does your theory go to then? And I also drink coffee ... what dreadful secret does this information reveal to you? However, I do not touch alcohol – or any other drug – whatsoever. What does this indicate? And will I get any brownie points for being a teetotaller? RESPONDENT: Richard disagrees that smoking as bad for you. He provides a link to this interesting site – https://web.archive.org/web/20140401071139/http://www.lcolby.com/ and https://lcolby.myvtoronte.com/ . I guess that ‘470,000 deaths per year in the US due to smoking-related illness’ statistic is not a fact. RICHARD: There is no need to guess ... if you had actually read what is on offer on that ‘interesting site’ – and followed-up on the links – you would already be cognisant of the fact that the statistics are generated by computer programmes, such as SAMMEC II, from epidemiological studies fed into them and not by a verified body-count. The GIGO cliché seems most apposite in this case. In other words there is no 470,000 (or whatever figure) gravestones upon which one can read words to the effect ‘here lies Jack/Jill; died aged x-years because of tobacco use’ as there is no medical evidence (no conclusive biological cause-effect connection) whatsoever that tobacco causes any of the 101 illnesses attributed to it since the current witch-hunt began in certain neo-puritanical quarters of the USA in the ‘fifties. There is plenty of literature on the subject – both on the internet and in books – which expose the so-called facts surrounding the issue to be the factoids they are ... as is the situation with many other issues which similarly hold sway in public imagination. The day may come when this era is more aptly re-named as the ‘Disinformation Age’. RESPONDENT: Hey how’s it going, Richard? I have a question to ask you... I have recently discovered the benefits of buying and smoking rolling-tobacco (it was your writing that gave me the idea in the first place). I discovered that not only is the taste so much better than name-brand pre-rolled tobacco, but immensely cheaper here in the States (200 cigarettes worth of tobacco for every two of packs of name-brand cigarettes). Also, the art of hand-rolling tobacco, I have found, is a lot of fun as I am improving my technique, little by little. The variety of rolling-tobacco in this part of Virginia is pretty limited (maybe at a tobacco barn they’ll be more variety). I have tried Beuglar, Top, and Drum tobacco (maybe you’ve heard of them). I am new to rolling my own cigarettes and looking for suggestions on good quality stuff. I am curious, what brands do you prefer? Any other tobacco connoisseurs have any input? RICHARD: Dr. Pat Ready Rubbed 50g (packed for Imperial Tobacco Australia Ltd., at Petone, New Zealand). RESPONDENT: [quoting from a World Health Organisation article]: The truth is that one out of every two long-term smokers will ultimately be killed by tobacco. RICHARD: I too have read similar claims – a quit-smoking pamphlet I have to hand, printed by an official cancer fund, states that ‘one in two lifetime smokers will die from their habit’ – yet when I looked at the official statistics for Australia, so as to find out what is actually happening (aka the fact) as contrasted to what they say will happen (aka the truth), I see that not even one out of one hundred tobacco users are dying of [alleged] smoking-related diseases. The figure is 0.47 out of 100 ... and even that figure is questionable. * RESPONDENT: The World Health Organization figures are based on ‘the largest study ever done on smoking deaths’. [quote]: ‘Researchers from China and the U.K., led by Professor Liu Boqi of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, investigated the smoking habits of one million Chinese people in 99 rural and urban areas who died between 1986 and 1988. Results from this and from studies led by Professor Niu Shiru and Dr Yang Gonghuan, both of the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine, show that there are already about three-quarters of a million deaths a year in China from smoking and most of these are men’. [endquote]. (www.who.int/archives/inf-pr-1997/en/pr97-61.html). Please read carefully without attempting to disfigure the facts. RICHARD: I appreciate your advice to read something carefully and without attempting to disfigure ‘the facts’ ... so much so that I must ask just what the facts are which you are referring me to in this instance? As far as I have been able to ascertain the (possibly SAMMEC-generated) figures relating to alleged smoking-related deaths contained in the article you posted – and the other article you posted less than an hour later – are based upon epidemiological correlations interpreted as being indicative of a causative association between tobacco use and various cancers and cardiovascular diseases ... yet any epidemiologist worthy of their salt knows that correlation does not equal causation. Which is why I remarked in my initial post that the method of determining smoking-related causes of death (physicians filling in death certificates) is a questionable practice. Furthermore the assumptions and speculations regarding the correlations are predicated upon the theory that there is a chemical cause – such as the human body being susceptible to certain carcinogenic substances – to the cancers and cardiovascular diseases in question and not a microbial cause ... and I say ‘theory’ because even after 50-odd years of multibillion-dollar research into locating the precise biological cause-effect evidence in regards tobacco smoke no conclusive evidence has been found to date. Meanwhile, under-funded research into a microbial cause has already produced some startling results, with promising avenues for similarly fruitful research in the pipeline, such as stomach cancer, for instance, no longer being regarded as a smoking-related (chemically-caused) disease but bacterially-caused ... specifically by a bacterium named Helicobacter Pylori. And instead of providing some other examples of a microbial cause, such as for liver cancer and cervical cancer, I would rather suggest that you first peruse the pages at the following URL’s so as to gain a taste of what biological cause-effect evidence looks like: http://vianet.net.au/~bjmrshll/features2.html http://www.helico.com/index.html If you access the following US Government URL you will see that stomach cancer is no longer listed as being a smoking-related disease (look under the heading ‘Malignant Neoplasms’): http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/sammec/help/icd_codes_hp.asp Whereas the quit-smoking pamphlet published by a cancer fund I have to hand has this to say about stomach cancer: • ‘There is a link between cigarette smoking and stomach cancer. It is estimated that 14% of stomach cancer in men and 11% of this cancer in women can be attributed to smoking’. Which goes to show just how tenacious a factoid can be. Be that as it may be the following URL’s could very well provide food for thought in regards to some possible areas of fruitful research: http://www.forbes.com/global/1999/1115/0223102a.html http://www.annals.org/issues/v131n12/full/199912210-00101.html What is now needed of course is some of those billions of research dollars, currently being spent on turning tobacco users into social pariahs, being shifted to the areas of fruitful research – after all these diseases affect all peoples and not just those that entertain certain habits considered by some as being bad habits – so that everybody can benefit from practical scientific research. However, human nature being as it is, I will not be holding my breath whilst waiting for that to happen. (for more on this subject there is a book available for free at the following URL): https://web.archive.org/web/20140401071139/http://www.lcolby.com/ and https://lcolby.myvtoronte.com/ RESPONDENT No. 58: [quoting from a World Health Organisation article]: The truth is that one out of every two long-term smokers will ultimately be killed by tobacco. RICHARD: I too have read similar claims – a quit-smoking pamphlet I have to hand, printed by an official cancer fund, states that ‘one in two lifetime smokers will die from their habit’ – yet when I looked at the official statistics for Australia, so as to find out what is actually happening (aka the fact) as contrasted to what they say will happen (aka the truth), I see that not even one out of one hundred tobacco users are dying of [alleged] smoking-related diseases. The figure is 0.47 out of 100 ... and even that figure is questionable. (Richard, List B, No. 58, 11 September 2002). RESPONDENT: Is there really a discrepancy between Richard’s number and that 50% number being used by the WHO? As far as I understand, Richard’s number of .47% is based on total smokers and not life time smokers. Life time smokers are only a part of the set of all smokers. We will call this quantity LTSM. If LTSM is 1/2 of all smokers, then .47% multiplied by 2 will yield .94%. This number of .94% will then represent the percentage of life time smokers that die per annum due to smoking. In order to then derive the percentage of deaths due to smoking for a life time smoker over the course of a lifetime, we will have to multiply .94% by an average number of years that life time smokers smoke. Given life expectancies of smokers, and discounting childhood non smoking years, we can assume that the number is around 50 years. And when we multiply 50 by that factor of .94% we have a figure that comes close to what the WHO is claiming, that of 50%. And it may very well be that LTSM is far less than 1/2 of all smokers, making the percentage of deaths due to a life time of smoking that much higher. RICHARD: Thank you for explaining this ... as I am a practical person it has always puzzled me how it could be said that one out of two tobacco users will die (aka the truth) of alleged smoking-related diseases when less than one out of one hundred tobacco users were dying (aka the fact) of alleged smoking-related diseases. And you are correct where you say that my figures are based on the total number of tobacco users (the figures are 19,000 alleged smoking-related deaths out of 4,000,000 current tobacco users). I was then interested to apply the formula you devised to statistics from another country: the figures supplied for the USA by the American Cancer Society are an alleged 430,700 smoking-related deaths per year out of 47,000,000 current tobacco users ... which means that the percentage is 0.91% per annum. Using the formula you devised then 0.91% multiplied by 2 will yield 1.82%. Upon multiplying 1.82% by 50 the result – as contrasted to the figure of 47% for Australia you arrived at – is 91% ... which is well above the 50% claimed by the World Health Organisation article and the quit-smoking pamphlet I have to hand. Now I could be facetious and suggest that tobacco users in the USA move to Australia for health reasons – a close to 1 out of 2 possibility of dying of alleged smoking-related causes is significantly less than an almost 1 out of 1 possibility of dying of alleged smoking-related causes – but instead I am left with a demonstration that the method of determining smoking-related causes of death (physicians filling in death certificates) is indeed questionable. Surely mathematical projections based upon questionable statistics are automatically inaccurate? Actual Freedom Homepage
Commonly Raised Objections – Index | Frequently Flogged Misconceptions – Index | Frequently Asked Questions – Index
Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless Design, Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997- . All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity