|
When you talk of being sensate based I start judging, specifically then how can he possibly
smoke cigarettes or drink coffee ... 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. 
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
You are either totally demented or smoking something besides nicotine – or maybe both. By
the way, nicotine addiction is the foremost drug addiction in the world.
|
|
|
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. An enlightened person would not want to be
involved in something like this.
|
|
|
Do you know, why it is so difficult to stop smoking?
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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).
(...) 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?
|
|
|
The truth is that one out of every two long-term smokers will ultimately be killed by
tobacco. The World Health Organization figures are based on ‘the largest study ever done on smoking deaths’. Please read
carefully without attempting to disfigure the facts.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
I just watched two of the sample videos of what I presumed to be Richard talking. In
the video he was smoking cigarettes. How is it that someone who can not even free himself from addictive substances thinks he can
offer a solution for others? If someone cannot even discontinue self-harm how can he present a solution for all humanity? Not
trying to be smart, just wondering.
|
