3 ms·

If there's anyone on HN who actually believes this scientific study, please explain why. Right now I think this is complete garbage that I hope never reaches th

by smtddr 13y ago

If there's anyone on HN who actually believes this scientific study, please explain why. Right now I think this is complete garbage that I hope never reaches the eyes of young & impressionable people. Smoking is bad for you any benefit it may or may not have is completely eclipsed by the mountains upon mountains of evidence showing the damage to the human body. EDIT: Removing quotes per comments below. EDIT2: Ok, I guess even if there are 99 bad things that are caused by smoking it doesn't mean there can't be 1 or 2 things good from it.

tlarkworthy 13y ago
nicotine is a stimulant. That's been known forever. People when tired prop themselves up with coffee and cigarettes. So it seems totally believable. The study doesn't say the cancer and heart problems don't exist, or are outweighed in any way. It just says nicotine has some positive effects. Most drugs do ... that's why people take them. I smoke. I don't want to die. So that's why I am trying to switch to a vapouriser. Every time I give up smoking, I get hit by a crushing amount of work at some point and then I start smoking again, because it makes me more effecient and stay awake longer. If I could have the productivity without the cancer that would be brilliant.
- visakanv 13y ago
  Yep, I remember that I always smoked more when tired, sleep deprived, etc.
pessimizer 13y ago
I'm not sure that your scare quotes around "scientific study" are an interesting enough argument to tempt people to put much of an effort into responding to you.
jrockway 13y ago
Just because something can kill you doesn't mean it doesn't also have benefits. Ultimately, one can decide for him or herself what's better: living longer, or getting more work done at work.
- throwaway0094 13y ago
  Not necessarily a trade-off with non-tobacco nicotine.
  - jrockway 13y ago
    I fully agree. From what I've read, nicotine itself is not as addictive as smoking, and it's not the part of tobacco smoke that causes cancer. Also, the withdrawal symptoms are typically more mild than caffeine withdrawal.
coldtea 13y ago
>If there's anyone on HN who actually believes this "scientific study", please explain why. Please explain why you use quotes around "scientific study". What's unscientific about it? Saying that various drugs, such as nicotine, have effects on our brain (concentration, focus, relax, depression etc etc)? That's a scientific given, and has been formally studied for centuries. >* I think this is complete garbage that I hope never reaches the eyes of young & impressionable people* Young and impressionable people? Sounds like some Southern bigot in 1955, talking about this "devil's music". >Smoking is bad for you any benefit it may or may not have is completely eclipsed by the mountains upon mountains of evidence showing the damage to the human body. Which is totally beside the point. They are not suggesting you start smoking.
lewispollard 13y ago
Despite the post's title, the study was about nicotine specifically, not tobacco. There are ways these days to consume nicotine without smoking tobacco.

by smtddr 13y ago

tlarkworthy 13y ago

nicotine is a stimulant. That's been known forever. People when tired prop themselves up with coffee and cigarettes. So it seems totally believable. The study doesn't say the cancer and heart problems don't exist, or are outweighed in any way. It just says nicotine has some positive effects. Most drugs do ... that's why people take them. I smoke. I don't want to die. So that's why I am trying to switch to a vapouriser. Every time I give up smoking, I get hit by a crushing amount of work at some point and then I start smoking again, because it makes me more effecient and stay awake longer. If I could have the productivity without the cancer that would be brilliant.

visakanv 13y ago
Yep, I remember that I always smoked more when tired, sleep deprived, etc.

pessimizer 13y ago

I'm not sure that your scare quotes around "scientific study" are an interesting enough argument to tempt people to put much of an effort into responding to you.

jrockway 13y ago

Just because something can kill you doesn't mean it doesn't also have benefits. Ultimately, one can decide for him or herself what's better: living longer, or getting more work done at work.

throwaway0094 13y ago
Not necessarily a trade-off with non-tobacco nicotine.
- jrockway 13y ago
  I fully agree. From what I've read, nicotine itself is not as addictive as smoking, and it's not the part of tobacco smoke that causes cancer. Also, the withdrawal symptoms are typically more mild than caffeine withdrawal.

coldtea 13y ago

>If there's anyone on HN who actually believes this "scientific study", please explain why. Please explain why you use quotes around "scientific study". What's unscientific about it? Saying that various drugs, such as nicotine, have effects on our brain (concentration, focus, relax, depression etc etc)? That's a scientific given, and has been formally studied for centuries. >* I think this is complete garbage that I hope never reaches the eyes of young & impressionable people* Young and impressionable people? Sounds like some Southern bigot in 1955, talking about this "devil's music". >Smoking is bad for you any benefit it may or may not have is completely eclipsed by the mountains upon mountains of evidence showing the damage to the human body. Which is totally beside the point. They are not suggesting you start smoking.

lewispollard 13y ago

Despite the post's title, the study was about nicotine specifically, not tobacco. There are ways these days to consume nicotine without smoking tobacco.