Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The king of smokers

thomas-morris.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 93 posts

Re: The king of smokers

#31

Post by throwaway729 »

derekp7 wrote: post #6
k-mcgrady wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually expanded upon my comment to cover that and it didn't post. Smoking it we can all agree isn't good for our lungs. However I wonder about the long term mental impact on regular users. The only ones I've known (and we're talking a couple of people so not a big sample) regularly lose focus and zone out when I talked to them (and they were sober). We look at cigarettes and alcohol as indulgences. We know they c…

I've had the same observation, that the people I know who smoke pot always seem to have that typical dunceness about them. But then I've wondered if the cause and effect is reversed -- maybe it is people who already have these cognitive attributes are more likely to be predisposed to smoking pot?

> that the people I know who smoke pot...

You should re-phrase this as: "the people I know who publicly advertise the fact that they smoke pot".

In my experience, there are a lot of marijuana users who are otherwise extremely normal people (and even sometimes on the exceptional end of normal). But given the legal status of marijuana, an ambitious middle-aged professional with a young family who also smokes a couple times a month is unlikely to publicly advertise the fact.

Because you (presumably) don't smoke, those people are extremely unlikely to confide in you about this particular subject.

Re: The king of smokers

#32

Post by chadgeidel »

JadeNB wrote: post #15
MOARDONGZPLZ wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've also been intrigued by this. I have never smoked any substance, but I don't care if others do at all, really. I acknowledge the benefits of it, but when I point out that inhaling smoke of any sort is bad for you at some level, I get a LOT of pushback for a claim that seems self-evident.

> when I point out that inhaling smoke of any sort is bad for you at some level, I get a LOT of pushback for a claim that seems self-evident. I don't argue this claim—I don't have any evidence either way—but nor do I regard it as self-evident. An honest, not rhetorical or leading, question: why should inhaling smoke be bad when inhaling, say, ordinary air isn't? Is it the heat? Particulates? EDIT: Thanks for the exce…

http://www.uvm.edu/~susagctr/Documents/Woodsmoke.pdf

Sam Harris had a decent presentation about it here: https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-fireplace-delusion

EDIT: This is just wood smoke I guess - You are asking about generic "smoke". I apologize for not addressing your question fully.

Re: The king of smokers

#33

Post by defen »

Does smoking (or smelling like smoke) keep mosquitoes away? I'm wondering if some second-order effect, like malaria prevention, led doctors back then to think that smoking was healthy.

Re: The king of smokers

#34

Post by dragonwriter »

JadeNB wrote: post #15
MOARDONGZPLZ wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've also been intrigued by this. I have never smoked any substance, but I don't care if others do at all, really. I acknowledge the benefits of it, but when I point out that inhaling smoke of any sort is bad for you at some level, I get a LOT of pushback for a claim that seems self-evident.

> when I point out that inhaling smoke of any sort is bad for you at some level, I get a LOT of pushback for a claim that seems self-evident. I don't argue this claim—I don't have any evidence either way—but nor do I regard it as self-evident. An honest, not rhetorical or leading, question: why should inhaling smoke be bad when inhaling, say, ordinary air isn't? Is it the heat? Particulates? EDIT: Thanks for the exce…

> I don't argue this claim—I don't have any evidence either way

You haven't seen evidence that smoke inhalation is a hazard with both acute and long-term harms?

Try this: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22smoke+inhalation%22+p...

Re: The king of smokers

#35

Post by thirstytho »

tptacek wrote: post #14
Synaesthesia wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tobacco is carcinogenic, even if chewed or sucked, and lacks any legitimate medical use. However Cannabis has many medicinal uses, is very safe and non-toxic with no signs that it causes cancer. I don't think that smoking weed is necessarily good though - I would recommend vaporizing it.

It seems pretty unlikely that cannabis smoking is significantly safer than tobacco smoking for lung health, and far more likely that the gap in outcomes in the literature is due to the difficulty (historically) of doing studies on the same scale as the tobacco studies. We seem too ready to forget that the cancer/tobacco link was itself once controversial.

On the face, there are dramatic differences between cannabis and cigarette smoke, the most important being that cigarette smoke is highly addictive, the second most important that cigarette smoke has much lower potency.

This is why our smoking/cancer statistics reflect a reality in which it was once extremely common for smokers to be inhaling one or more ounces of burned tobacco per day.

Most people already know that that's a huge amount of weed for an average person. Even out of folks who are getting high every day, almost none are hitting that mark-- the most obvious proof of that being that it would cost them hundreds or thousands of dollars per day. Even if we allow for unfiltered cannabis smoke to be several times more carcinogenic than commercial cigarette smoke, we're not going to get there.

In fact the opposite is true; the average person who develops a serious weed habit (more than a few grams a week) is actively incentivized to try safe methods of consumption like vaporization, extracts, or edibles, if nothing else because they will save a lot of money.

So apples-to-apples, we wind up comparing the habits of generic cigarette smokers to those of drug dealers and very wealthy, very pot-addicted people. I understand the desire not to approve of any amount of smoke inhalation, but the null hypothesis here is not equivalent risk.

Apart from all of that, our generation didn't invent smoking weed, and neither did our parents. If cannabis represents a public health hazard on a similar scale to cigarette smoking, it's hiding pretty well after all this time.

Re: The king of smokers

#36

Post by bogomipz »

tptacek wrote: post #14
Synaesthesia wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tobacco is carcinogenic, even if chewed or sucked, and lacks any legitimate medical use. However Cannabis has many medicinal uses, is very safe and non-toxic with no signs that it causes cancer. I don't think that smoking weed is necessarily good though - I would recommend vaporizing it.

It seems pretty unlikely that cannabis smoking is significantly safer than tobacco smoking for lung health, and far more likely that the gap in outcomes in the literature is due to the difficulty (historically) of doing studies on the same scale as the tobacco studies. We seem too ready to forget that the cancer/tobacco link was itself once controversial.

I agree I think the comparison has to be organic tobacco like pouch tobacco or American Spirits which don't have all the additives such as saltpeter, bromine and chlorine. Its hard to believe though that ingesting one type of smoke vs another is any better for you.

Re: The king of smokers

#37

Post by yodsanklai »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #2

I wonder how much the current 'marijuana is good for you' attitude resembles the 'smoking is good for you' attitude in the past? NB: I think all drugs should be legalised so this isn't an anti-drugs post.

I'm also a little bit bothered by the 'marijuana is good for you' attitude that we see in the US. It seems that in order to prove that it's not bad, people go to the opposite direction. The reality is more nuanced than good/bad. It may not be as bad as tobacco or alcohol, but it is potentially harmful (I know many people whose lives have been very negatively impacted by long-term cannabis consumption). I also find it surprising to see how it is sometimes depicted very positively in mainstream TV series.

Re: The king of smokers

#39

Post by wry_discontent »

HillaryBriss wrote: post #25

> [tobacco's] virtues rarely get a hearing, and yet the latter are many and great. To quiet nervous rest; to soothe a ruffled temper; to favour calm and partial thought; to steady and clear (not to cloud) a confused, overworked brain; to counteract the effects of physical exhaustion Taking this at face value, I wonder what impact such a drug could have on the productivity of a workforce, especially programmers. I als…

I would bet it's been replaced either in part or in whole by coffee. I know I drink coffee like people used to smoke (except at night when I switch over to tea).

That and electronic cigarettes.

Re: The king of smokers

#40

Post by justsaysmthng »

defen wrote: post #33

Does smoking (or smelling like smoke) keep mosquitoes away? I'm wondering if some second-order effect, like malaria prevention, led doctors back then to think that smoking was healthy.

Yes, if you blow the smoke on them, they don't like it.

But I was bitten countless times when I was a smoker, so it's not a very effective remedy.

Post reply on HN