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

11–20 of 93 posts

Re: The king of smokers

#11

Post by mercer »

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?

I'm sure that's at least a partial explanation. I've met quite a few people who struck me as stoners who only 'picked up the habit' later on. I've also met regular smokers who don't conform to the stereotypes.

That said, I personally don't feel comfortable indulging in something chronically that has such pronounced effect on my mental abilities. Even if it has no long-term physical consequences, the habit (and what comes with it: junk food, junk tv, lethargy, etc.) itself can't be ideal.

Re: The king of smokers

#12

Post by Synaesthesia »

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.

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.

Re: The king of smokers

#13

Post by MOARDONGZPLZ »

ionised wrote: post #8
maxerickson wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't most of the people espousing that attitude acknowledge that the smoking part has negative consequences? Hence vaping and edibles and such?

I've witnessed countless pro-legalisation fundamentalists that absolutely refuse to believe smoking cannabis has any negative effect whatsoever, phsyically or mentally. As someone who smoked it heavily for around 10 years (don't anymore) I know it can have negative effects. I witnessed them in myself and in the people around me at the time. I'm pro-legalisation myself, but can't help roll my eyes at these 'potheads'…

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.

Re: The king of smokers

#14

Post by tptacek »

Synaesthesia wrote: post #12
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.

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.

Re: The king of smokers

#15

Post by JadeNB »

MOARDONGZPLZ wrote: post #13
ionised wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've witnessed countless pro-legalisation fundamentalists that absolutely refuse to believe smoking cannabis has any negative effect whatsoever, phsyically or mentally. As someone who smoked it heavily for around 10 years (don't anymore) I know it can have negative effects. I witnessed them in myself and in the people around me at the time. I'm pro-legalisation myself, but can't help roll my eyes at these 'potheads'…

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 excellent responses! (The detailed discussions below are far more interesting than my question, I think.) To be clear (since I am "submitting too fast" to reply to comments below), lest I sound like some kind of denier, when I say "I don't have any evidence either way", I mean literally that—just that I haven't bothered to get any, not that there isn't any.

Re: The king of smokers

#16

Post by rascul »

ionised wrote: post #10
rascul wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been studies in the past few years showing that the health risk from smoking perhaps isn't as bad as was commonly believed. Here's one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25521349

The problem in the weed health impact debate is that you'll likely find just as many studies showing higher risks as those showing lesser risks.

Unfortunately this is true and it may be difficult to weed out which studies are both unbiased and conclusive, if any do exist.

Re: The king of smokers

#17

Post by sebular »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #5
maxerickson wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't most of the people espousing that attitude acknowledge that the smoking part has negative consequences? Hence vaping and edibles and such?

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…

There's some discussion on the health benefits of Marijuana, but to say that "Marijuana talk tends to be focussed _[sic]_ around health benefits still" is blowing things pretty far out of proportion.

Cannabis has been a Schedule 1 drug for decades, which makes it, according to the DEA's own definition, a drug "with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse."

It's only in the past couple of years that there's been any sort of serious talk about potential health benefits. Marijuana use and sale was first banned in 1937, and when that ban was later declared unconstitutional, the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 created the drug scheduling system and placed it in the "most dangerous" category.

Next year will mark the 80th anniversary of the original 1937 ban, so it seems hard to claim that the prevailing "Marijuana talk" of our time has focused on the health benefits, rather than the dangers. The reason there's been a small but constant discourse on the health benefits of cannabis over the past eight decades is that the current laws and the official DEA stance are clearly overzealous.

It's as if soft drinks were outlawed, and our government declared that they were as bad for your health as heroin. In truth, if you are a sufficiently heavy "daily drinker" of sugar water, you will develop a severe chemical dependence, and eventually wind up with type 2 diabetes, which will permanently damage your health and certainly shorten your lifespan. However, there's nothing wrong with having a root beer every now and then.

So if soft drinks had been illegal for the past 80 years because they had "no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse" (which is true), you'd definitely be hearing some determined voices pointing out that there were some potential health benefits of sugar and water.

Re: The king of smokers

#18

Post by w__m »

Synaesthesia wrote: post #12
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.

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.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC526783/ literally every potent drug has strong side effects. Nicotine is just one of them, a powerful stimulant and analgesic. Many problems with it lie in self-medication and mass production.

Re: The king of smokers

#19

Post by Bartweiss »

The "clever calculator" mentioned in the post is perhaps a bit less clever than suggested.

500,000 quarts of beer, spread evenly over an 80-year drinking career, still amounts to 34 pints per day. However great his appetites, I'm a bit skeptical of that number.

Re: The king of smokers

#20

Post by saiya-jin »

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…

burning any organic material, and most others produce carcinogens. hence vaping - heating material to boiling temperature of pot resin while not burning rest of the plant, in ideal conditions.
Post reply on HN