hubbard on smoking

Discussion in 'Evaluating and Criticising Scientology' started by lightweight, Jan 2, 2019.

View Users: View Users
  1. lightweight

    lightweight Patron

    Hi I need help on this - Ive read the quote
    Well, there are societies in England that are having an awfully good time
    fighting the cigarette. They can't do anything else, so they fight

    cigarettes. And they say that the cigarette causes lung cancer. And
    they've -- you've been hearing something of this, I'm sure. Yeah. Not
    smoking enough will cause lung cancer. Not smoking enough will cause lung
    cancer! If anybody is getting a cancerous activity in the lung, the
    probabilities are that it's radiation dosage coupled with the fact that he
    smokes. And what it does is start to run out the radiation dosage, don't
    you see. But I'd say that would be better than not running out any of the
    radiation dosage at all and the number of lung cancer cases which exist,
    of course, that don't smoke are just forgotten about by these societies,
    but they are very numerous.
    Anyway, there's nicotinic acid in that cigarette. Inevitably, on

    inhalation of tobacco, you will get some of this phenomena of face flush,
    but in view of the fact that a cigarette isn't pushing its smoke over the
    outside of the body but on the inside, of course, you run it out
    internally.
    -- L. Ron Hubbard

    SHSBC-35 6107C19, 19 July 1961

    Now I said to a scn that this is where hubbard says smoking more is good when you have lung cancer. The scn says he heard the lecture and people laugh...its a joke...and the fact that I believe that he means you need to smoke more is laughable - so whats going on here? is he joking or is he serious?
     
  2. ThetanExterior

    ThetanExterior Gold Meritorious Patron

    He said an awful lot of stupid things. I wouldn't bother trying to discuss it with a scientologist. They will try to make Hubbard look good no matter what evidence to the contrary they are presented with.
     
  3. guanoloco

    guanoloco As-Wased

    He's serious. He did joke about things such as R2-45 and stuff but in this one he's serious. This is "what turns it on, turns it off". This is "run the process until it's flat".

    What the Scientologist is doing is either:

    A) "handling" the public (you) to redirect/misdirect the concern because this data is out-gradient and above your "havingness"

    Or

    B) the church, itself, has done this with its members and recontextualized this to make it palatable

    Scientology at a literal sense believes anything and everything that you suffer from is a mockup that you created even though you're unaware of it.

    In Scientology, smoking doesn't cause cancer. An OT is at Cause and could suck on radiation and not get cancer.

    If you have cancer you "pulled it in"...you've mocked it up on an automaticity to punish yourself, reduce your reach, etc., because of the harm you've done to others.

    It's "bank" and Ron rose above that...meaning once that's done you can smoke all you want.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  4. lightweight

    lightweight Patron

    but isn't he saying here that smoking is caused by radiation and the radiation can be gotten rid of by smoking because cigs contain niacin - I don't know but niacin I don't think is the same as nicotinic acid? (niacin doesn't get rid of radiation anyway)
     
  5. guanoloco

    guanoloco As-Wased

    No. It's a radiation dosage (like that makes sense) that is being "restimulated" by the nicotinic acid in the smoke. This causes a flush like niacin that is "turning on" and "running out" the cancer.

    There's a term in Scientology called "rabbiting" and that's when auditors, C/Ss and tech "terminals" stop or drop or alter a process in the middle of it without finishing the process because these people lack the confront to finish the process because of the discomfort of the PC (pre-Clear).

    The cancer may appear life threatening but whatever turned it on, in this case it's cigarette smoke and, specifically, nicotinic acid that is acting like niacin, needs to be continued to EP (end phenomena) to run it out fully and turn it off.

    Don't rabbit and run from the process because it appears life threatening. Continue to EP. What turns it on, turns it off.

    That's what he's saying.
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2019
    • Like Like x 2
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    • List
  6. Wilbur

    Wilbur Patron Meritorious

    I think niacin IS nicotinic acid. Its NICOTINE that's in cigarettes, not nicotinic acid.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 4
    • Like Like x 1
    • List
  7. JustSheila

    JustSheila Crusader

    Yes, it is. You are right. Niacin is a B vitamin. As such, it is one of the few things that can pass the brain-blood barrier to go directly to your brain. Nicotinic Acid is basically the same as niacin, but in another form. It is what is added to foods as the B vitamin supplement, but it is in a form where it does not give anyone an uncomfortable flush.

    NICOTINE is not a B vitamin. It is another derivative and similar enough to niacin or nicotinic acid that it fools the brain to think that it is and can cross the brain-blood barrier. That's why nicotine is so incredibly addictive.

    (I took nursing classes and also have a lot of people in the medical profession in my family.)

    Beyond being addictive, nicotine by itself isn't particularly bad for you, though opinions on that vary and I have no reason to push the point. It isn't good for you, either. It's like shooting blanks to your brain to make it think it's getting nutrition when it's not.
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2019
  8. Wilbur

    Wilbur Patron Meritorious

    Well, he WAS joking when he married his second wife, Sara Northrup, apparently.
     
  9. Wilbur

    Wilbur Patron Meritorious

    I don't think that's quite right, Sheila. Nicotinic acid IS niacin. The non-flush form is nicotinamide.

    Apparently, when nicotinic acid was added to flour, newspaper headlines said something like "nicotine added to your bread", so the name nicotinic acid was changed to niacin, in order not to alarm people who might confuse nicotinic acid with nicotine. But nicotine and nicotinic acid are closely related (the latter being an oxide of the former).
     
  10. JustSheila

    JustSheila Crusader

    Yup. Again, you're right. My computer is running slow and I hadn't bothered to look it up to verify. That was off the top of my head, sorry for the error.

    As you said, nicotine and nicotinic acid are closely related and niacin is nicotinic acid. But nicotine has no nutritional value and is not a B vitamin. It is not either of those and it is changed in such a way that it does not do what the B vitamin does. I quit smoking last year and shifted to vaping and my doctor went over this stuff with me, explaining how nicotine crosses the brain-blood barrier because it fools the brain. It was fascinating. So the rest was from my doctor's talk with me and not that long ago. He seemed to really know what he was talking about.

    The nicotinic acid added to foods does not give you the niacin flush. If that's interesting enough to look up, go for it. It's still niacin, IDK the chemical reason why this form doesn't give a flush.
     
  11. guanoloco

    guanoloco As-Wased

    Well, like HH says and we all know it's the Hubbard Law of Commotion where for every policy and rule there's an equal and opposite policy and rule. You know, where Sheila recently stated that she trashed ethics files because Hubbard said to and in other ares he said not to.

    When it comes to him "joking" it's the same thing. Was it a joke? Was R2-45 a joke? Was he serious?

    It fits right in with this:

    If it isn't fun it isn't Scientology...that insouciant deadly serious activity not some minor game we are all playing for blood where it's the only game where everybody wins or dies in the attempt because we'd rather have you dead than incapable where only the tigers survive that isn't cute or done for lack of something better to do so why go bowling or have other fish to fry if it isn't fun it isn't Scientology.​
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • LOL LOL x 2
    • List
  12. Wilbur

    Wilbur Patron Meritorious

    When I was doing the Purif, and reading around Scientology stuff relating to drugs, etc., I was struck by the fact that alcohol was regarded as a drug in Scientology, but cigarettes weren't. It was obvious to me at the time that this was because Hubbard smoked.To me, tobacco is as much a drug as alcohol. If the purif does what it says, it should be flushing out tobacco tar as much as it is flushing out other drug residues. It should have been a warning flag at the time. I maintained my viewpoint that tobacco was a drug, but just kept it to myself.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    • List
  13. strativarius

    strativarius Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband

    As soon as I read the above I went for information, because what I though I knew about Nicotine didn't tally with what you wrote. This is what I found.

    Nicotine, the addictive ingredient in cigarettes, can be quite a lethal compound. It's widely recognized to be deadly at doses between 30 and 60 milligrams, making it more dangerous than both arsenic and cyanide.

    Dox
     
  14. guanoloco

    guanoloco As-Wased

    That's even better, Wilbur. This is Hubbard being totally wrong about the cigarette smoke having nicotinic acid, then?

    I wonder how many people actually puffed away when they were diagnosed with lung cancer?
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2019
    • Like Like x 2
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    • List
  15. JustSheila

    JustSheila Crusader

    Thanks, Stratty. I need to read up more on that. Apparently in lower doses it's pretty tame, though. Even arsenic isn't a poison when it's used in low doses to cure cancers or treat leukemia.

    But I promise I'll study up on it more. Science information keeps changing.
     
  16. strativarius

    strativarius Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband

    Sadly gl, because we all subscribed to 'The way out is the way through', and 'What turns it on will turn it off', I suspect large numbers of unfortunate people did just that.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Love Love x 1
    • List
  17. Wilbur

    Wilbur Patron Meritorious

    Well, he was partly right. If you pour nitric acid into your lungs after each puff on the cigarette, you might be able to convert some of the nicotine to nicotinic acid. Apparently that's how Incident II of OT III started. The doctors were trying to cure everyone of lung cancer when they stuck the needles into everyone's lungs. Picked up the wrong syringe. To cover up their mistake, they shipped everyone to earth, and showed them a picture show, hoping they would forget about the iatrogenic mistake made on them.
     
  18. Type4_PTS

    Type4_PTS Diamond Invictus SP

    Here's a snippet of the lecture where Hubbard say this.

    While a woman laughs in response, Hubbard doesn't sound as though he is joking whatsoever.

     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    • List
  19. JustSheila

    JustSheila Crusader

    TERRIFIC article someone posted today on Tony Ortega's site that clarifies information about chemicals:

    https://thelogicofscience.com/2015/...GSZmnUKk7Bhg78RBSC57xOc2P4rkqut2WGIYHuE7x54KI
     
  20. Wilbur

    Wilbur Patron Meritorious

    That's a good article, but companies themselves often make use of people's ignorance of chemistry. For example, I have seen the ingredient "aqua" listed in products (= water) to make it sound more exotic. The most well-known vitamin store in the UK, Holland & Barrett, replaced their niacin several years ago with the pharmacologically inert nicotinamide, and continued to use almost identical packaging, and the label Vitamin B3. Nicotinamide is a less useful form of Vitamin B3 (for example, Niacin is a more natural alternative to statins for those with heart problems, whereas nicotinamide is useless for that purpose). Also, whilst it is true that water is water, no matter how it is produced, it's not necessarily true that a chemically-synthesised or processed PRODUCT is the same as the natural alternative. White flour is a good example, where the processing takes out all of the nutrients.

    So whilst the content of that article is true, I can see it being misused as a propaganda piece for big companies which, lets face it, don't give a fuck about whether their food or products are healthy. They only care about what they can get away with, and how it impacts the bottom line. Whilst it is true that a laboratory produced version of a pure chemical will be equivalent to the naturally-occurring counterpart chemical, it WON'T generally be true that a factory-produced food (say) is equivalent to the naturally-occurring equivalent, since the producer will place economic efficiency over nutritional value every time, to the extent that they can get away with it. So in many cases, the natural-versus-artificial dichotomy isn't comparing like with like. I'm not worried about whether my water is produced in a test-tube or comes from a stream, if it's PURE water. But if it's got an artificial sweetener added (I've seen this on a product that was supposed to be water mixed with fruit juice) then it's definitely NOT the same as natural water.

    So I can understand people's presumption that 'natural is better'. If it's been produced by a company, there's a fair chance that it's been fucked with to make it cheaper to produce. Whilst the claim that vaccines have mercury in them and so are bad may, as the article suggests, be misleading, putting toxic substances into medicines is the kind of thing that pharmaceutical companies routinely do, so it's not surprising that people are suspicious of vaccines. I knew someone who was given statins to take after having their coronary artery unblocked. They were told that they had to go back and have their liver function tested a month later. When they asked why, they were told that the doctors had to check to see whether the statins were shutting down his liver.

    When you look into the side effects of medications, they are often potentially worse than the ailment that the medication is treating. You wouldn't expect this, if you were operating on the assumption that medicine is simply about making people better. Who would give you a substance that poisons your healthy liver, just to lower your lipids? Or redefine 'addictive' to mean 'you want to take higher and higher doses of it' instead of the commonsense 'can't stop taking it' in the case of certain psych drugs. But where profit-making corporations run by amoral psychopaths are concerned, you clearly can't make that assumption. So for me, the burden of proof is on the pharmaceutical companies, not the 'stupid' consumer who doesn't understand chemistry.

    ETA: Has anyone else noticed that certain products now last an unnaturally long period of time before going off. Even the bacteria don't think it's food! I've seen milk last more than two weeks in a fridge; bread last the same amount of time. Same with some meat. Consumers presumably think that's wonderful. But my first thought is, if it doesn't decompose, then can I even digest it? And what the fuck is it made of, that even bacteria can't digest it?
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2019
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    • List