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

The New Smoking (2021)

conorbroderick.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 162 posts

Re: The New Smoking (2021)

#151

Post by imiric »

adastra22 wrote: post #143
imiric wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ultimately if the air is smokey, it contains particulate matter. That particulate matter is not good for your lungs, no matter what it is. This reads like medieval miasmatic theory. In other news, breathing and living is the #1 cause of death. The quality of the air you breathe is what affects your risk of developing cancer. Burning tobacco releases the most amount of harmful particles, and even then, many people s…

Any smoke causes cancer. Anything which is not burned fully to completion (which is anything burnt outside of an oxygen-rich furnace) contains polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. These aromatic compounds bind to DNA reverse transcriptase during cellular replication, causing a mutation. Accumulation of mutations over time causes cancer. QED.

You're repeating your absolutist take while ignoring any sense of nuance.

No, smoke doesn't _cause_ cancer. Breathing in anything other than clean air _may increase_ the risk of developing cancer, but there's no certainty that if you e.g. suck on a tailpipe you'll catch the cancer.

There's a substantial difference from inhaling the smoke from combusting tobacco laced with hundreds of harmful chemicals, and inhaling the vapor from exposing the cannabis flower to much lower temperatures. How much difference exactly? I'll wait for more research to be done to draw my conclusions, but you go ahead and think it's the same thing.

> Accumulation of mutations over time causes cancer.

Again, the keyword you're ignoring is "risk". Our cells go through millions of mutations throughout our lifetime, and there are many factors that determine each person's propensity towards cancer. The best way of minimizing that risk is by living in a bubble, but some people choose to live in polluted cities, drive ICE cars, enjoy eating grilled meat, and inhaling marijuana and even cigarette smoke. Just because you might be risk-averse to partake in any of this, doesn't mean that we should dump all of it under the same "causes cancer" category.

Re: The New Smoking (2021)

#152

Post by gumby »

stephen_g wrote: post #128
gumby wrote: post #74

I miss smoking (well, not really; I'm not a smoker). But all the rituals around it were very important for modulating the cadence and even nature of conversation, offering shared rituals, give-and-take, and, by convention, forced but acceptable pauses.

Lots of people use coffee (cafe culture) for that here in Australia, which has the benefit of actually slightly reducing all-cause mortality. I pop out at least once a day for a coffee break away from our work building, often with a coworker or two. I try to basically never get a takeaway, it’s so much better to pause and have a real worm break sitting at the cafe.

The thing about the cigarette rituals is that they were at a higher resolution: you'd sit in a cafe with a cup of coffee talking to someone and the smoking rituals silently punctuated the conversation itself.

Essentially, the language has changed!

Re: The New Smoking (2021)

#153

Post by gumby »

ShredKazoo wrote: post #105
gumby wrote: post #74

I miss smoking (well, not really; I'm not a smoker). But all the rituals around it were very important for modulating the cadence and even nature of conversation, offering shared rituals, give-and-take, and, by convention, forced but acceptable pauses.

Someone's gotta invent a cigarette that's actually good for your health! (Oddly enough this might actually work. My understanding is that nicotine is not actually that unhealthy; it's mostly the other stuff in cigarette's that's bad for you. Additionally, based on an old coworker of mine who quite smoking successfully, a big part of the addiction is just having something to put in your mouth.)

I used to work in drug delivery and many people joked about how smoking is a drug delivery system. There are of course asthma inhalers but those directly address the lungs themselves.

The only inhaled drug delivery system I know of was an insulin delivery system (Exubera) which AFAIK failed in the market for some reason.

Re: The New Smoking (2021)

#154

Post by rhacker »

nradov wrote: post #11
rhacker wrote: post #2

I mean he's right. At some point if we're just robots playing candy crush or watching tiktok after tiktok - what's the real downside of just matrixing our society. I mean yes there are people that still skateboard or ski or hike, but if the population that finds meaning in activities disappears in the next 100 years, there's no reason to have physical anything. Might as well call it or fight back.

The people who spend all day sitting and staring at screens will end up with lower reproductive fitness due to obesity, weakness, and various endocrine system disorders. So over a long enough time scale, evolution will sort us out.

That's only if staring at screens is a genetic trait, which probably isn't. Two super fit parents may end up having a slouch potato.

Re: The New Smoking (2021)

#155

Post by whiplash451 »

buildsjets wrote: post #84
whiplash451 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Early usage of TVs consisted in living the tv set turned on constantly, which in the hindsight was insane. With time, we learned to « master » the technology that was put in our hands. Much along the lines of what this article points out.

The voice of inexperience with early TV sets is loud here. You would never do that with early sets, as the damn vacuum tubes would burn out very quickly, then Dad would get mad, take the back off the set, take ALL the tubes out, cart them down to the drugstore, use their tester to find the burned out tube, and buy a replacement. Dad, being a busy man, would not appreciate doing this very often, and so tightly control…

My bad, I was looking at the 80's when I said early. You have a point!

Re: The New Smoking (2021)

#156

Post by civopsec »

creakingstairs wrote: post #126
civopsec wrote: post #37

Many, many people point this out but most of them don't seem to have much insight beyond the symptoms. I've thought about the apparent paradox that I keep distracting myself with a phone/computer while also not getting any fulfillment out of it. Right now I think it is about self-loathing and hating my own company. I hated being undistracted since that meant more attention for my thoughts. Those nagging, awful though…

> I did try to carve out some 10 minutes here and there where I just sat with myself, focused on the moment, and didn't look at my phone You say you didn't pick up meditation again but what you describe sounds like meditation to me :p The meditation guide I use always assumes that my mind will be wondering off and gently reminds me to come back to focus, just like you've been doing by yourself!

You’re correct :) Specifically I meant that I haven’t picked up formal meditation again. Which for me means sitting and walking meditation.

The goal though is of course to practice meditation all the time. And I guess I didn’t do much of that back when I meditated more formally. Maybe that was my biggest mistake? Refer back to my frustration with mind-wandering. My more gentle approach now feels much better. :)

Re: The New Smoking (2021)

#157

Post by nullcaution »

bitxbitxbitcoin wrote: post #122
adastra22 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When operating a moving vehicle, in comparison to THC? Yes, absolutely. That was the context in which I was speaking. Nicotine calms nerves while improving focus. There's a reason people like smoking tobacco. Marijuana, on the other hand, slows your reaction time and hampers decision making, as well as (in a small percentage of people, but including me) triggers depression, paranoia, and psychosis. Although it is leg…

Consumption of marijuana in public places is perfectly legal depending on your jurisdiction. Allowing smoking of marijuana wherever smoking of nicotine is allowed seems “only fair.” Examples in the USA include Oklahoma and New York. On the other hand. The impairment you are talking about has been shown to affect non regular users more.[0] and to be negligible to regular users. I wouldn’t want to be driving on the roa…

> Allowing smoking of marijuana wherever smoking of nicotine is allowed seems “only fair.”

I agree, in either tobacco or Marijuana, your not going to accidentally get high just existing in a smoking area. Marijuana however smells gross from a distance, I would be polite where you light up. Thats just common sense.

> I wouldn’t want to be driving on the road with someone after they smoked their very first cigarette. I remember...

As someone who had regularly done both, this is very wrong. First time smoking tobacco, yes I'd never want to drive in that state, but nicotine I would argue helps me pay attention, especially when driving for hours in a straight line. (Guess where I live) Marijuana however impaired me every time, and similar to alcohol I would never drive in that state.

Re: The New Smoking (2021)

#158

Post by bergenty »

myshpa wrote: post #146
bergenty wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vaping is significantly less dangerous than smoking, it’s not just some “false” perception. Without added flavors you can argue it is completely harmless and in some ways beneficial (nicotine has several health benefits).

> Vaping is significantly less dangerous than smoking Agree. > Without added flavors you can argue it is completely harmless No, it's not. Filling your lungs with fine particulate matter/grease is stupid. You can still get COPD, some do. That's pretty shitty way to go.

What grease? The base is vegetable glycerin that hospitals use in their nebulizers, used in smoke generators at concerts and has been repeatedly proven to be absolutely safe for human inhalation.

Re: The New Smoking (2021)

#159

Post by jmoak3 »

owisd wrote: post #56
bad416f1f5a2 wrote: post #47

I’m reminded of the moral panic my parents generation had around televisions. And their parents generation had over serialized plays on the radio. And several generations removed, the panic over the printing press .

Was there actually a moral panic about TV in general? There was one about TV violence specifically. The general concerns about TV like reduced physical activity are still a concern and aren’t imaginary.

The movie Network (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_(1976_film)) famously skewered TV culture and its effect on people.

It won several oscars, and is still referenced today.

Re: The New Smoking (2021)

#160

Post by n8henrie »

adastra22 wrote: post #111
n8henrie wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hadn't thought of cannabis consumption as being unequivocally associated with cancer risk. I haven't paid much attention, but there was a pretty big JAMA paper a decade or so ago that didn't demonstrate much risk at something like "a joint per day for 40 years" level consumption. Vaping may well have its own -- perhaps even greater -- risks, but I hadn't assumed propylene glycol to be particularly carcinogenic. Is…

Smoking causes cancer. Not tobacco. Not marijuana. Inhaling smoke causes cancer, pretty much independent of what is being burnt. (Though obviously some substances are even worse still.) For some reason people think it is tobacco that causes lung cancer, and therefore joints are safe/healthy. Ridiculous. It is inhaling all that ash that gives you lung and throat cancer. Vaping avoids the carcinogens of cigarette smoke…

> Ultimately if the air is smokey

You seem to be conflating "looks smokey" with particulate matter, which I suspect is generally reasonable but perhaps not in all contexts. Water vapor can cause the air to look "smokey." If you go outside an a 5º day and exhale, does your exhaled breath contain more particulate matter than if you did so on a 50º day?

Post reply on HN