6 ms·

> Many have touted smoking marijuana as a safer alternative to cigarettes Wierd take, given that they are completely different drugs, with completely different

> Many have touted smoking marijuana as a safer alternative to cigarettes Wierd take, given that they are completely different drugs, with completely different effects on the brain, with the only similarity being that they are both ingested via smoke.

zwnow 1y ago
And any kind of smoke isn't good for the lungs. I'm tired of people pretending that Marijuana is that wonder drug that's somehow "healthier" than smoking. It's just less unhealthy, which still makes it unhealthy.
- btreecat 1y ago
  Sitting in traffic is unhealthy, eating junk food is unhealthy, living with excessive heat is unhealthy, poverty is unhealthy, too much water is unhealthy. Lots of things are unhealthy. Some of those are many degrees worse than others, and some only in certain context.
  - zwnow 1y ago
    Some things you can actively avoid though. And inhaling smoke on a regular basis is one of them. I'm particularly sensitive about this topic because I live in a country in which my tax money is used to finance treatment of illnesses that people self inflicted due to smoking.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - dijit 1y ago
      I hear you, and I agree. For me, though, some amount of harm is built-in to our condition. We will eat junk sometimes, we will be sedentary sometimes- we might even overindulge sometimes. For me, marijuana is recreational, like alcohol. If a recreational session of marijuana is better for humans than a recreational session of alcohol, then I would actively promote that- since we are all keenly aware of how prohibiting all recreational unhealthy things goes in reality. “Perfect is the enemy of good”, in this case I might say that “perfect is the enemy of improvement”; maybe theres a better quote for exactly this. Knowing that its better on your lungs than smoking, which was socially acceptable 20 years ago, goes a long way to helping. Though I also agree with other commenters, its a low bar and the frequency of recreational drug use vs casual smoking is an apples to oranges comparison
      - zorobo 1y ago
        > If a recreational session of marijuana is better for humans than a recreational session of alcohol, then I would actively promote that- Well it's not: if someone smokes near me, I am smoking with him. Not so with alcohol.
        btreecat 1y ago
        Smoking near you, and forcing you to actively consume second hand smoke are not the same. It's bad practice to equate an offensive order with drug consumption.
    - eru 1y ago
      Eh, I want to agree with you because smoking is disgusting to me, but honestly in most countries is so heavily taxed these days that smokers are a net fiscal positive, even if the NHS pays for their health care.
      - Dibby053 1y ago
        What about life expectancy? If smoking makes you die 10 years earlier, that's ~10 years of pension savings for social insurance. Sure, an unlucky few may get lung cancer at 50 and cost a lot of money but most smokers will die, retired, of cheap ailments like COPD or hypertension without fully realizing their social security investment.
        eru 1y ago
        Yes, public pensions make smokers even more fiscally positive on expectation. (However in my adopted home we don't have public pensions like that. Your pension pot is yours, and if you keel over, your heirs get it. But smokers are still fiscally positive. I brought up the NHS as a short-hand for any kind of healthcare system where the general taxpayer foots your medical bill.)
    - trust_bt_verify 1y ago
      And I’m sure there are those who cringe when they see you but into a sweet for the same reasons. People optimize for lots of things in their life that are not always health, and that’s ok.
- elif 1y ago
  There are neurogenic, anti-tumor, and anti-inflammatory properties and no direct chemical addiction mechanisms as present in nicotine. Additionally your statement about "any kind of smoke" while kind of true does not recognize the disproportionate concentration of carcinogens specific to cigarette smoke. It also misses the disclaimer that nearly as many cannabis users vape and consume edibles (roughly 70%) as do smoke (only 79%) which is certainly better than smoke, even before you add the benefits of water filtration and cooling common for marijuana users.
  - zwnow 1y ago
    Where are the long time studies on vaping? I regularly read news about vaping with new findings on it being unhealthy... Not gonna defend smoking but also not gonna defend any other loser behavior regarding drugs.
    - elif 1y ago
      What do you think is the harm of vapor that, for instance, begins it's life at 163 degrees, is filtered for particulates through water, and then cooled by flowing through ice and can be as low as 25 degrees depending only on breath speed? I'm not saying it's nothing but I'm also not going to pretend it's any worse than, say, living in a wildfire state. Are you saying that is comparable to a 800 degree ember 4 inches from your mouth?
    - david-gpu 1y ago
      > not gonna defend any other loser behavior regarding drugs Is that how you feel about drinking coffee and wine as well, or does it only apply to some other drugs? Is it the same for prescription drugs?
      - zwnow 1y ago
        Coffee isn't nearly as self destructive as smoking or marijuana. Moderation is key for everything. Unfortunately the alcoholics I know and the weed addicts aren't the biggest fans of moderation. I lost friends to both so yea. Also I can't make people passively consume coffee. People who smoke weed are often extremely inconsiderate on who they affect with that.
- kubb 1y ago
  Just use a vaporizer and the problem is gone. This one is good: https://www.storz-bickel.com/en/venty https://www.storz-bickel.com/en/venty
  - eru 1y ago
    Or use edibles (for marijuana), or gums or plasters (for nicotine). So many better options than setting leaves on fire.
- eru 1y ago
  Yes. And you can get the mind-altering effects of both marijuana and tobacco without setting them on fire.
- freefaler 1y ago
  More "healthy" for the lungs, but less healthy for the brain... Not sure what is worse.
eru 1y ago
Eh, they are both fairly harmless on the brain. (At least directly.) What kills you is the tar in your lungs (and on the way there, like your throat). And you get that from burning stuff in general.
- Ey7NFZ3P0nzAe 1y ago
  You say "harmless" but I'd rather say "non toxic". To illustrate: cannabis will not create gaping holes in your brain like mercury would, but although I'm convinced there are valid reasons to use cannabinoids for medical purposes, I'm also convinced that recreational use (especially at a young age) has a terrible impact on brain development and personnality developpment. My personal take is that the proportion of people that subjectively enjoy cannabis at the cost of feeling okay with very bad life decisions is high enough to warrant extreme carefulness when decriminalizing it. The typical example is the stoner apathy that turns into amotivational syndrome. Re reading your comment I see that it was mainly to get this off my chest. Hope you don't mind.
  - eru 1y ago
    Oh, yes, cannabis does seem to have an effect on people's judgement. Though it might be a bit hard to establish the direction of causality. I just meant that the direct damage smoking either plant does to your brain pales in comparison to direct damage the tar causes to your lungs. > I'm also convinced that recreational use (especially at a young age) has a terrible impact on brain development and personality development. > [...] high enough to warrant extreme carefulness when decriminalizing it. I suspect you can get most of the benefits of decriminalizing (like removing a funding source for organised crime) whilst avoiding most of the downside you mention, by slapping on an appropriately high tax on the stuff. The main limit is that if your tax is too high, it encourages (too much of) a black market. But I'm fairly sure there's a tax that's high enough to keep the consumption of most youngsters and poor people low, whilst still avoiding much of a black market. I explicitly mention youngsters and poor people, because as conceived the tax is a paternalistic instrument to protect people from themselves. Rich people don't need our protection, they can fend for themselves.

zwnow 1y ago

And any kind of smoke isn't good for the lungs. I'm tired of people pretending that Marijuana is that wonder drug that's somehow "healthier" than smoking. It's just less unhealthy, which still makes it unhealthy.

btreecat 1y ago
Sitting in traffic is unhealthy, eating junk food is unhealthy, living with excessive heat is unhealthy, poverty is unhealthy, too much water is unhealthy. Lots of things are unhealthy. Some of those are many degrees worse than others, and some only in certain context.
- zwnow 1y ago
  Some things you can actively avoid though. And inhaling smoke on a regular basis is one of them. I'm particularly sensitive about this topic because I live in a country in which my tax money is used to finance treatment of illnesses that people self inflicted due to smoking.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - dijit 1y ago
    I hear you, and I agree. For me, though, some amount of harm is built-in to our condition. We will eat junk sometimes, we will be sedentary sometimes- we might even overindulge sometimes. For me, marijuana is recreational, like alcohol. If a recreational session of marijuana is better for humans than a recreational session of alcohol, then I would actively promote that- since we are all keenly aware of how prohibiting all recreational unhealthy things goes in reality. “Perfect is the enemy of good”, in this case I might say that “perfect is the enemy of improvement”; maybe theres a better quote for exactly this. Knowing that its better on your lungs than smoking, which was socially acceptable 20 years ago, goes a long way to helping. Though I also agree with other commenters, its a low bar and the frequency of recreational drug use vs casual smoking is an apples to oranges comparison
    - zorobo 1y ago
      > If a recreational session of marijuana is better for humans than a recreational session of alcohol, then I would actively promote that- Well it's not: if someone smokes near me, I am smoking with him. Not so with alcohol.
      - btreecat 1y ago
        Smoking near you, and forcing you to actively consume second hand smoke are not the same. It's bad practice to equate an offensive order with drug consumption.
  - eru 1y ago
    Eh, I want to agree with you because smoking is disgusting to me, but honestly in most countries is so heavily taxed these days that smokers are a net fiscal positive, even if the NHS pays for their health care.
    - Dibby053 1y ago
      What about life expectancy? If smoking makes you die 10 years earlier, that's ~10 years of pension savings for social insurance. Sure, an unlucky few may get lung cancer at 50 and cost a lot of money but most smokers will die, retired, of cheap ailments like COPD or hypertension without fully realizing their social security investment.
      - eru 1y ago
        Yes, public pensions make smokers even more fiscally positive on expectation. (However in my adopted home we don't have public pensions like that. Your pension pot is yours, and if you keel over, your heirs get it. But smokers are still fiscally positive. I brought up the NHS as a short-hand for any kind of healthcare system where the general taxpayer foots your medical bill.)
  - trust_bt_verify 1y ago
    And I’m sure there are those who cringe when they see you but into a sweet for the same reasons. People optimize for lots of things in their life that are not always health, and that’s ok.
elif 1y ago
There are neurogenic, anti-tumor, and anti-inflammatory properties and no direct chemical addiction mechanisms as present in nicotine. Additionally your statement about "any kind of smoke" while kind of true does not recognize the disproportionate concentration of carcinogens specific to cigarette smoke. It also misses the disclaimer that nearly as many cannabis users vape and consume edibles (roughly 70%) as do smoke (only 79%) which is certainly better than smoke, even before you add the benefits of water filtration and cooling common for marijuana users.
- zwnow 1y ago
  Where are the long time studies on vaping? I regularly read news about vaping with new findings on it being unhealthy... Not gonna defend smoking but also not gonna defend any other loser behavior regarding drugs.
  - elif 1y ago
    What do you think is the harm of vapor that, for instance, begins it's life at 163 degrees, is filtered for particulates through water, and then cooled by flowing through ice and can be as low as 25 degrees depending only on breath speed? I'm not saying it's nothing but I'm also not going to pretend it's any worse than, say, living in a wildfire state. Are you saying that is comparable to a 800 degree ember 4 inches from your mouth?
  - david-gpu 1y ago
    > not gonna defend any other loser behavior regarding drugs Is that how you feel about drinking coffee and wine as well, or does it only apply to some other drugs? Is it the same for prescription drugs?
    - zwnow 1y ago
      Coffee isn't nearly as self destructive as smoking or marijuana. Moderation is key for everything. Unfortunately the alcoholics I know and the weed addicts aren't the biggest fans of moderation. I lost friends to both so yea. Also I can't make people passively consume coffee. People who smoke weed are often extremely inconsiderate on who they affect with that.
kubb 1y ago
Just use a vaporizer and the problem is gone. This one is good: https://www.storz-bickel.com/en/venty https://www.storz-bickel.com/en/venty
- eru 1y ago
  Or use edibles (for marijuana), or gums or plasters (for nicotine). So many better options than setting leaves on fire.
eru 1y ago
Yes. And you can get the mind-altering effects of both marijuana and tobacco without setting them on fire.
freefaler 1y ago
More "healthy" for the lungs, but less healthy for the brain... Not sure what is worse.

eru 1y ago

Eh, they are both fairly harmless on the brain. (At least directly.) What kills you is the tar in your lungs (and on the way there, like your throat). And you get that from burning stuff in general.

Ey7NFZ3P0nzAe 1y ago
You say "harmless" but I'd rather say "non toxic". To illustrate: cannabis will not create gaping holes in your brain like mercury would, but although I'm convinced there are valid reasons to use cannabinoids for medical purposes, I'm also convinced that recreational use (especially at a young age) has a terrible impact on brain development and personnality developpment. My personal take is that the proportion of people that subjectively enjoy cannabis at the cost of feeling okay with very bad life decisions is high enough to warrant extreme carefulness when decriminalizing it. The typical example is the stoner apathy that turns into amotivational syndrome. Re reading your comment I see that it was mainly to get this off my chest. Hope you don't mind.
- eru 1y ago
  Oh, yes, cannabis does seem to have an effect on people's judgement. Though it might be a bit hard to establish the direction of causality. I just meant that the direct damage smoking either plant does to your brain pales in comparison to direct damage the tar causes to your lungs. > I'm also convinced that recreational use (especially at a young age) has a terrible impact on brain development and personality development. > [...] high enough to warrant extreme carefulness when decriminalizing it. I suspect you can get most of the benefits of decriminalizing (like removing a funding source for organised crime) whilst avoiding most of the downside you mention, by slapping on an appropriately high tax on the stuff. The main limit is that if your tax is too high, it encourages (too much of) a black market. But I'm fairly sure there's a tax that's high enough to keep the consumption of most youngsters and poor people low, whilst still avoiding much of a black market. I explicitly mention youngsters and poor people, because as conceived the tax is a paternalistic instrument to protect people from themselves. Rich people don't need our protection, they can fend for themselves.