Live data from Hacker News

The king of smokers

thomas-morris.uk

91–93 of 93 posts

Re: The king of smokers

#91
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That may explain part of your negative bias. I barely eat during or after (munchies are emotional in nature), don't have TV, dropped net/phone addiction (far more insidious an evil in this age), and usually get high to sing, compose on the guitar, dance, stretch, sometimes some light programming.. I do it every day. It's about what you do with it, isn't it? Get high every day to be a vegetable: train to become better…

I'm happy it works for you, but for me that never really panned out. Perhaps it would work if I didn't have access to the internet and/or lived in a more nature-like area. Or perhaps it would work if my lifestyle was already different. I don't know. But as it is, if I smoke I become either couch-locked or jittery and paranoid. I think individual differences matter a great deal, and you're right in pointing that out.…

The burst of creativity is just marijuana (a medicinal drug) lifting your emotional hang ups so you express yourself with less restraints, more like a curious child. In other times it's not so pleasant but it's still the medicine freeing your anxieties up and out; but you need to face them, greet your biggest fears to see them out. It's why most people stop smoking, like a meditation journey, year by year it may get more terrifying observing your inner self, but facing anxieties is the only way to be rid of them. Weed accelerates the process if used with the right mind and ends, that is, to engage in self-therapy (e.g. playing and doing fun stuff). In psychoactive trips as with life, you have to take the good with the bad.

Re: The king of smokers

#92
post #87
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One thing to note is that the purported health effects of smoking are almost all mental or neurological in function rather than physical How is "mental or neurological" not physical?

I meant to infer that it was a primarily psychological benefit.

well yes, derived to a large extent from altering the body chemistry.

Re: The king of smokers

#93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this issue is muddied by conflating two different questions. 1. Tobacco itself is quite carcinogenic. Snuff, chew, gutka, and any other means of consumption all have strong cancer links. Cannabis, as I understand it, is not nearly as carcinogenic as that. 2. Smoking is also, separately , carcinogenic. Regularly breathing dense smoke is terrible for your lungs, even if you're smoking dried lettuce. I think it'…

I have heard (from cannabis advocates, so taking it with a very large halite deposit) that cannabis itself has anti-cancer, or at least anti-tumor, activity. If true, it may be that some of the chemicals present in cannabis may alleviate the harm from the carcinogenic chemicals present in all smoke from burnt vegetable matter. If the effect is large enough, cannabis may still have a net benefit, even when smoked. May…

So we can't eat baked or fried vegetables either? There's a huge difference between plant matter that is pyrolised and that which is vaporized at about 200c. It's obvious. When you vaporize it mostly remains behind whereas when you smoke it mostly gets turned into ash, which you inhale.

Cannabis has been shown to have anti-cancer properties in at least two clinical studies that I know of. Not the miracle cure that some cannabis advocates say it is, but certainly worth researching.

The fact that cannabis reduces side effects of cancer treatments is well known and a major reason why it is prescribed in the US.

It's absolutely ridiculous that the DEA continues to insist that it's not a medicine, it's clearly a medicine.

Post reply on HN