4 ms·

Conversely wouldn’t the south have a near monopoly on nicotine (also a stimulant). I wonder what impact nicotine consumption - if any - had on the war.

crawfishphase 2y ago
the outcome was that tobacco kills, and the surgeon general lee agrees
- TimTheTinker 2y ago
  That was only a national conclusion after the advent of modern cigarettes. Cigars and pipes are more nuanced and far less harmful (especially because of the chemicals that aren't added, and the fact that you don't inhale)
  - TeaBrain 2y ago
    Both Ulysses S Grant and Grover Cleveland were heavy consumers of cigars. Both ended up with oral cancer.
    - TimTheTinker 2y ago
      Hot smoke in general causes cancer. Wood smoke (from fireplace, bonfire, etc.) is more carcinogenic per unit than pure (non-cigarette) tobacco smoke. There's a stronger link between regular wood fireplace use and cancer than there is between moderate pipe/cigar use and cancer. So moderate (not heavy like Grant) cigar and pipe smoking ought to be regarded as within the realm of acceptable risk, especially given the enjoyment and mental benefits that result. But if we're going to discuss carcinogens, a lot of other things ought to be considered too. For example, why isn't alcohol, a known carcinogen, considered socially taboo compared to pipe smoking? Why are burning wood fireplaces considered "a nice touch" when the second-hand smoke from them is far more dangerous than that from an outdoor cigar user nearby?
      - TeaBrain 2y ago
        I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else to never smoke cigars. I just think that it is fair to make the point that cigars are not necessarily entirely safe, even if the relative risk for lung cancer is less than for cigarettes. I didn't even necessarily even make this point, as with my previous comment, I simply made two separate statements, and you came to a possibly implied conclusion yourself. Regardless of the safety of cigars, I fail to see the logic behind how the idea that the relative risk of wood smoke compared to cigar smoke is supposed to convince anyone that cigar smoke should seem safe, considering that wood fires are no longer commonly used to heat homes in the developed world. Indoor smoke from heating and cooking has been well-established as a carcinogenic risk, but people not using wood to heat nor using smoke-point inducing temperatures when cooking, do not regularly expose themselves to these risks. Also, I never claimed that alcohol did not increase carcinogenic risk. I make no position on that. However, given the proposition that alcohol is a carcinogen, then as cigars use is not mutually exclusive to alcohol use, and as smoking cigars incurs some carcinogenic risk, then for users of cigars and alcohol, cigar use would be an additive risk along with the risk incurred by alcohol use.
        TimTheTinker 2y ago
        > I fail to see the logic behind how the idea that the relative risk of wood smoke compared to cigar smoke is supposed to convince anyone that cigar smoke should seem safe It's not so much a logical argument as an emotional one (though it is a true statement). So much of the public opposition to tobacco is emotional, not logical. So that's where at least some of the discussion needs to happen. Sometimes the best way to put something in the proper perspective is to make a comparison to a more familiar thing. I grew up believing tobacco use was one of the worst possible sins against God, and that lighting wood in the fireplace was a relaxing, enjoyable thing to do. So at least for me, the argument was helpful to put things into perspective.
      - lukan 2y ago
        "So moderate cigar and pipe smoking ought to be regarded as within the realm of acceptable risk" I believe that you have the right to come to this personal conclusion, but I do not think it is true, as a general statement. (also please be consciousness about where you smoke, other people might not share your enjoyment)
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
eggoa 2y ago
Ulysses Grant was pretty much a machine that consumed cigars and emitted union victories.
- ProjectArcturis 2y ago
  Whiskey was also one of the inputs.
  - seizethecheese 2y ago
    He didn’t drink much while in charge of troops engaged in battle, then he’d go on massive binges where he got silly drunk. So, sort of?

crawfishphase 2y ago

the outcome was that tobacco kills, and the surgeon general lee agrees

TimTheTinker 2y ago
That was only a national conclusion after the advent of modern cigarettes. Cigars and pipes are more nuanced and far less harmful (especially because of the chemicals that aren't added, and the fact that you don't inhale)
- TeaBrain 2y ago
  Both Ulysses S Grant and Grover Cleveland were heavy consumers of cigars. Both ended up with oral cancer.
  - TimTheTinker 2y ago
    Hot smoke in general causes cancer. Wood smoke (from fireplace, bonfire, etc.) is more carcinogenic per unit than pure (non-cigarette) tobacco smoke. There's a stronger link between regular wood fireplace use and cancer than there is between moderate pipe/cigar use and cancer. So moderate (not heavy like Grant) cigar and pipe smoking ought to be regarded as within the realm of acceptable risk, especially given the enjoyment and mental benefits that result. But if we're going to discuss carcinogens, a lot of other things ought to be considered too. For example, why isn't alcohol, a known carcinogen, considered socially taboo compared to pipe smoking? Why are burning wood fireplaces considered "a nice touch" when the second-hand smoke from them is far more dangerous than that from an outdoor cigar user nearby?
    - TeaBrain 2y ago
      I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else to never smoke cigars. I just think that it is fair to make the point that cigars are not necessarily entirely safe, even if the relative risk for lung cancer is less than for cigarettes. I didn't even necessarily even make this point, as with my previous comment, I simply made two separate statements, and you came to a possibly implied conclusion yourself. Regardless of the safety of cigars, I fail to see the logic behind how the idea that the relative risk of wood smoke compared to cigar smoke is supposed to convince anyone that cigar smoke should seem safe, considering that wood fires are no longer commonly used to heat homes in the developed world. Indoor smoke from heating and cooking has been well-established as a carcinogenic risk, but people not using wood to heat nor using smoke-point inducing temperatures when cooking, do not regularly expose themselves to these risks. Also, I never claimed that alcohol did not increase carcinogenic risk. I make no position on that. However, given the proposition that alcohol is a carcinogen, then as cigars use is not mutually exclusive to alcohol use, and as smoking cigars incurs some carcinogenic risk, then for users of cigars and alcohol, cigar use would be an additive risk along with the risk incurred by alcohol use.
      - TimTheTinker 2y ago
        > I fail to see the logic behind how the idea that the relative risk of wood smoke compared to cigar smoke is supposed to convince anyone that cigar smoke should seem safe It's not so much a logical argument as an emotional one (though it is a true statement). So much of the public opposition to tobacco is emotional, not logical. So that's where at least some of the discussion needs to happen. Sometimes the best way to put something in the proper perspective is to make a comparison to a more familiar thing. I grew up believing tobacco use was one of the worst possible sins against God, and that lighting wood in the fireplace was a relaxing, enjoyable thing to do. So at least for me, the argument was helpful to put things into perspective.
    - lukan 2y ago
      "So moderate cigar and pipe smoking ought to be regarded as within the realm of acceptable risk" I believe that you have the right to come to this personal conclusion, but I do not think it is true, as a general statement. (also please be consciousness about where you smoke, other people might not share your enjoyment)
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

eggoa 2y ago

Ulysses Grant was pretty much a machine that consumed cigars and emitted union victories.

ProjectArcturis 2y ago
Whiskey was also one of the inputs.
- seizethecheese 2y ago
  He didn’t drink much while in charge of troops engaged in battle, then he’d go on massive binges where he got silly drunk. So, sort of?