4 ms·

Smoke is bad for you period. The chemicals and nicotine content is irrelevant.

munk-a 6y ago
If you smoke as much weed as a chain smoker does cigarettes you're going to be really high. Generally speaking "weed usage" introduces far fewer carcinogens compared to "cigarette usage" - but lots of things are bad for you including alcohol and, especially, sugar.
- dnhz 6y ago
  Carcinogens: smoke, alcohol. Not a carcinogen: sugar. Sugar demonization is out of control. Many people eat an unhealthy amount of it, but any level of tobacco or alcohol consumption harms health.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    Not being a carcinogen doesn’t mean something isn’t bad for you. I’d even go so far as to say all added sugar is bad for you. Doctors even put fruit juice on the list of bad things since it’s just sugar, even for kids. And sugar needs to be vilified more if anything. I would bet healthcare spending on issues related to excess sugar/carbohydrate consumption (aka being overweight) dwarf anything else.
    - Reelin 6y ago
      > Doctors even put fruit juice on the list of bad things That's not because simple sugars are inherently bad for you but rather because many people don't realize just how much of it fruit juices contain. Related to this, an older family member was warned by a doctor for various reasons to cut back on fruit intake (not juice, but fruit itself).
      - lotsofpulp 6y ago
        That is my point though. Even though sugar isn't inherently bad for you, it's so incredibly easy to over consume, that is responsible for an enormous share of our healthcare costs, if not the majority. So it's possible to consider it as even worse than some carcinogens.
      - MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
        Also a good indicator of what is fruit juice and what is not is look if it's a cocktail, vitamin c, no added sugars (high fructose corn syrup), and ingredients in general. I never buy juice unless it's roughly 80-100% plus in vitamin c and it contains 0 added sugars. I'm often shocked how many "juices" are literally de-carbonized soda with a healthy looking image.
    - dnhz 6y ago
      The original point is that no amount of smoking or drinking is good for you. Sugar has a threshold since fruit is healthy. Sugar gets all the blame, and fat is ignored even though consumption of both have increased (in the US) over time. And fat is confusing to people because nowadays plenty of people believe saturated fat is ok. I'd support a soda tax though.
      - MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
        Soda taxes are stupid. Look at cigarettes. Still in existence yet you're taxing the (more than likely) poorer class of people because they got addicted to something. If you really want to stop this, you regulate the factories that produce the goods. You can't deter economic behavior among consumers simply by charging more. You can however alter their habits if the market goods that exist change. For instance, when I buy groceries at walmart, if they don't have tyson boneless chicken that i want but instead great value boneless chicken, and I need chicken, I'm going to buy the great value chicken. Likewise in the scenario, if all fruit juices contained far less sugar, all of the country could adapt. If they want more sugar, nothing is stopping them from manually adding it themselves. Extra taxes are just imposed upon lower classes. Just because you charge more from an item doesn't stop poor people from buying it. It just makes them poorer.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bigbubba 6y ago
I'm quite sure breathing in any sort of hot soot does you no favors, but it's obviously absurdly false that the chemical composition of the smoke doesn't matter, or that all smoke is made equal. Some smokes are much worse than others.
- MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
  American Sprits initially made it seem like their additive free cigarettes were somehow more "healthier" when they really weren't. I get that chemically they aren't the same thing. However it's like saying Captain Morgan isn't as bad as Fleischmans. If you compare someone taking significantly more weed hits than you are tobacco hits, the weed smoker will most likely be in poorer health than the tobacco smoker.

If you smoke as much weed as a chain smoker does cigarettes you're going to be really high. Generally speaking "weed usage" introduces far fewer carcinogens compared to "cigarette usage" - but lots of things are bad for you including alcohol and, especially, sugar.

dnhz 6y ago
Carcinogens: smoke, alcohol. Not a carcinogen: sugar. Sugar demonization is out of control. Many people eat an unhealthy amount of it, but any level of tobacco or alcohol consumption harms health.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  Not being a carcinogen doesn’t mean something isn’t bad for you. I’d even go so far as to say all added sugar is bad for you. Doctors even put fruit juice on the list of bad things since it’s just sugar, even for kids. And sugar needs to be vilified more if anything. I would bet healthcare spending on issues related to excess sugar/carbohydrate consumption (aka being overweight) dwarf anything else.
  - Reelin 6y ago
    > Doctors even put fruit juice on the list of bad things That's not because simple sugars are inherently bad for you but rather because many people don't realize just how much of it fruit juices contain. Related to this, an older family member was warned by a doctor for various reasons to cut back on fruit intake (not juice, but fruit itself).
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      That is my point though. Even though sugar isn't inherently bad for you, it's so incredibly easy to over consume, that is responsible for an enormous share of our healthcare costs, if not the majority. So it's possible to consider it as even worse than some carcinogens.
    - MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
      Also a good indicator of what is fruit juice and what is not is look if it's a cocktail, vitamin c, no added sugars (high fructose corn syrup), and ingredients in general. I never buy juice unless it's roughly 80-100% plus in vitamin c and it contains 0 added sugars. I'm often shocked how many "juices" are literally de-carbonized soda with a healthy looking image.
  - dnhz 6y ago
    The original point is that no amount of smoking or drinking is good for you. Sugar has a threshold since fruit is healthy. Sugar gets all the blame, and fat is ignored even though consumption of both have increased (in the US) over time. And fat is confusing to people because nowadays plenty of people believe saturated fat is ok. I'd support a soda tax though.
    - MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
      Soda taxes are stupid. Look at cigarettes. Still in existence yet you're taxing the (more than likely) poorer class of people because they got addicted to something. If you really want to stop this, you regulate the factories that produce the goods. You can't deter economic behavior among consumers simply by charging more. You can however alter their habits if the market goods that exist change. For instance, when I buy groceries at walmart, if they don't have tyson boneless chicken that i want but instead great value boneless chicken, and I need chicken, I'm going to buy the great value chicken. Likewise in the scenario, if all fruit juices contained far less sugar, all of the country could adapt. If they want more sugar, nothing is stopping them from manually adding it themselves. Extra taxes are just imposed upon lower classes. Just because you charge more from an item doesn't stop poor people from buying it. It just makes them poorer.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

bigbubba 6y ago

I'm quite sure breathing in any sort of hot soot does you no favors, but it's obviously absurdly false that the chemical composition of the smoke doesn't matter, or that all smoke is made equal. Some smokes are much worse than others.

MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
American Sprits initially made it seem like their additive free cigarettes were somehow more "healthier" when they really weren't. I get that chemically they aren't the same thing. However it's like saying Captain Morgan isn't as bad as Fleischmans. If you compare someone taking significantly more weed hits than you are tobacco hits, the weed smoker will most likely be in poorer health than the tobacco smoker.