Keep in mind that many people still deliberately inhale the products of combustion of tobacco.
I don't smoke, but most chlorocarbons smell good --- clean and slightly sweet is how I'd describe the fragrance.
But the US Surgeon General had different findings, and the only conclusion that we can make is that it is not tobacco that kills, only cigarettes:
Death rates for current pipe smokers were little if at all higher than for non-smokers, even with men smoking 10 pipefuls per day and with men who had smoked pipes for more than 30 years.[2]
Among the pipe smokers.... The US mortality ratios are 0.8 for non-inhalers and 1.0 for inhalers.[3]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdV_1u-TodY&t=13m25s
[2] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/tobacco/nnbbmq.pdf (No. 1103, p.112)
[3] ibid. (No. 1103, page 92)
Citation needed by all pot smokers. Just love how everyone insists they know absolutely everything and are never wrong. Guess what?
> ...causes cancer at the same rate as with them
I think they're referring to your original claim that tobacco smoke, without additives, doesn't cause cancer.
Your later apparent softening of that statement feels sneaky. It's significant, and makes all the difference in the world.
Once again I am being attributed something that is not mine. It is not my claim, it is the claim of the US Surgeon General's Report on Smoking and Health, and I stand by the science which claims (i.e. it is not my claim, it is the claim of the US Surgeon General) that pipe smokers who inhale live as long as nonsmokers, and pipe smokers that don’t inhale live longer than non-smokers.
Smoking tobacco that is not infused with more than 300 known carcinogens does not cause cancer. No one is saying smoking is healthy, only that the cancer rates of natural tobacco smokers are non-existent, no higher than the general population. They'll just have to deal with that fact, that they've been lied to in order to protect Big Tobacco's cash cow and methods of making cigarettes intentionally more addicting to drive it. Natural tobacco, in comparison, has a fraction of the amount of nicotine as what's in national brand cigarettes and thus is in comparison far less addictive.
I honestly don't care. I just think it's interesting that most people believe tobacco causes cancer so strongly, and they're provably wrong. It's what they put in cigarettes that causes cancer, and I don't know how anyone can call that tobacco.
It is certainly true that cigarettes are generally more carcinogenic. However, your statement that "actual tobacco can cause emphysema, not cancer" is emphatically false.
I would suggest being somewhat less confrontational when your primary source on an actively researched topic is from 1964. In your words, "[j]ust love how everyone insists they know absolutely everything and are never wrong. Guess what?"
That's awesome. Please cite which paragraph mentions "natural tobacco," because here "pipe smokers" is ambiguous, and even pipe tobacco can be treated to not only increase its nicotine content, but also be infused with carcinogenic additives to make the final product more addictive, and thereby also making it more deadly (not due to it's addictiveness directly, but by the chemicals that cause it to be more addictive, such as adding ammonia), In fact, it is standard practice for major brands of pipe tobacco to treat the tobacco to turn it into something that should be distinguished as "not tobacco," so unless the study distinguishes between natural and treated tobacco smokers, it is a flawed study.
Is it really so impossible to believe that you were lied to and believe total crap? Tobacco, natural tobacco without any carcinogenic chemicals added, does not cause cancer.