KrishnaDreamer said:

definitely cigs, cigs (if you inhale, which most people do) fuck your lungs all up. alcohol might fuck your liver up, but you'd have to abuse the shit for a long time, more so than cigs, relatively.

if  you look at it anthropologically humans were designed to cope with alcohol more so than they were to handle carcinogenic smoke in their lungs.

---

Being a chain smoker is not nearly as bad as being an alcoholic and I only say  this because chain smokers usually only hurt themselves. . . . more people die from drunk driving accidents than they do from second-hand smoke. . . babies born from a mother who smokes are lucky not to come out fucked up vs. babies who come from a mother who drinks are lucky to come out alive at all!

KrishnaDreamer said:

if  you look at it anthropologically humans were designed to cope with alcohol more so than they were to handle carcinogenic smoke in their lungs.

---

Prisoner#1 said:

KrishnaDreamer said:

if  you look at it anthropologically humans were designed to cope with alcohol more so than they were to handle carcinogenic smoke in their lungs.

---

speak for yourself, injuns been using tobacco for 8000+ years,
about the same length of time everyone else had alcohol, John
Wayne lived 72 years and smoked 6 packs per day, liver cancer
killed him although he did have lung cancer that most
contributed to radiation, Jackie Gleason lived 71 years, also
smoked 6 packs per day he died from liver/colon cancer

Gleason had no signs of lung cancer or any other respiratory
issues due to cigarettes

---

KrishnaDreamer said:

indians used tobacco only in ceremonies or for relaxation/socializing.

---

KrishnaDreamer said:

well, that falls under the relaxation part doesn't it?

---

Quote:

if you were to take a moderate alcohol drinker and a moderate tobacco smoker i'd wager that the tobacco smoker would be in worse health quicker and die quicker.

---

BlimeyGrimey said:

Your lungs however are very vulnerable organs. They supply the oxygen you need to simply function at any level. they do a good job at dealing with the normal levels of allergens and toxins. They are NOT good at constantly trying to heal themselves are they are constantly re-injured.

just my 2c.

---

KrishnaDreamer said:

i don't get what you're trying to prove, are you trying to convince me that alcohol is worse than tobacco or something?

---

Quote:

i don't know exactly how you would quantify the damages associated with both activities, but as above poster pointed out, from a biological point of view, tobacco does more damage. 

---