Live data from Hacker News

On Smoking

annagat.substack.com

401–403 of 403 posts

Re: On Smoking

#401

Some fun facts about the ingredients in tobacco.. The reason smoking causes cancer is the high amount of polonium 210, yes, that stuff they used to kill Litvenchenko. The reason for the presence of polonium 210 is flavour. Truly. It sounds far fetched, but, while the polonium is thought to contaminate the plant from the environment. Tobacco plants have lots of sticky little hairs which attract particles. It could be…

Polonium is not “THE” reason smoking causes cancer, it is “A” reason. There are plenty of other cancer causing chemicals in there too, polonium has good company.

It’s a bit nick picky to point out, but given the historic confusion tactics by tobacco companies, it’s important to be accurate when talking about ways smoking effects health.

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/t...

Re: On Smoking

#402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Alcohol hangs around because it was accessible in earlier eras. There will come a time, I suspect in the very near future, when it will look ridiculous. Where having a `drink' will be an anachronism Why do you think this? It seems an extremely puritan outlook, I'm a bit sceptical that puritanism is saleable without enforcement of society-wide religious norms. Smoking, sure, but smoking is not at all like alcohol co…

Given that I think cannabis, MDMA, pyslocybin and other drugs are far superior to alcohol, I don't think most people would categorize my beliefs as puritanical. If anything it's puritanical "old ways" beliefs that keeps alcohol as the primary drug despite an enormous array of extreme negatives.

I understand where you're coming from, but I feel like this ignores practicality and, coupled to that, social use. You can go on numbers related to health, or raw effectiveness, but those numbers don't measure practicality.

MD, mushrooms (and acid et al) are far too powerful (yes, you can take very small doses, but in general). To look at it coldly, they're just not at all practical, regardless of them having, I would say, far fewer direct negative health effects. Indirectly though, things that immediately change people's mental state to such a degree are I would say more dangerous than alcohol.

With alcohol, I can go and have a small amount with family or friends or colleagues, for a short period of time. I can do it home, with a meal. And the actual drinking of it is core. It's not like taking one the above drugs: I take the drug then I am mentally altered to a large degree, possibly for a long period of time. In the case of a selfish drug, like cocaine or an amphetamine, I can function, and the effects a shorter, but there's no social aspect. The actual sitting down with others to spend time imbibing is central.

Cannabis obviously has this in common, so I think that's a very fair comparison. And just to stay on topic, so does tobacco. It's not just the effect of the drug that's attractive, it's [what I think is fair to say is] the social ritual associated with it. It helps that taking those isn't quick (it's not just slipping a pill), that's a feature.

Post reply on HN