Every Year of Smoking Causes About 150 New DNA Mutations That Can Make Cancer More Likely, Says Study (latimes.com) 158
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Los Angeles Times: For every year that you continue your pack-a-day habit, the DNA in every cell in your lungs acquires about 150 new mutations. Some of those mutations may be harmless, but the more there are, the greater the risk that one or more of them will wind up causing cancer. The threat doesn't stop there, according to a study in Friday's edition of the journal Science. After a year of smoking a pack of cigarettes each day, the cells in the larynx pick up roughly 97 new mutations, those in the pharynx accumulate 39 new mutations, and cells in the oral cavity gain 23 new mutations. Even organs with no direct exposure to tobacco smoke appear to be affected. The researchers counted about 18 new mutations in every bladder cell and six new mutations in every liver cell for each "pack-year" that smokers smoked. The findings are based on a genetic analysis of 5,243 cancers, including 2,490 from smokers and 1,063 from patients who said they had never smoked tobacco cigarettes. The researchers used powerful supercomputers to compare thousands of cancer genome sequences. The computers grouped the sequences into about 20 distinct categories, or "mutational signatures." Mutations tied to five of these signatures were more common in tumors from smokers than in tumors from nonsmokers. One of the signatures involves a specific DNA nucleobase change -- instead of a C for cytosine, there was an A for adenine -- that "is very similar" to the change that occurs in the lab when cells are exposed to benzo[a]pyrene, a compound that the International Agency for Research on Cancer says is carcinogenic to humans. Most of the lung and larynx cancers obtained from smokers had this type of mutation, the researchers reported. They also found that the signature was more common among smokers than nonsmokers. Another mutational signature was characterized by Cs that should have been Ts (thymine) and vice versa. Although these changes can be found in all kinds of cancers, the signature was 1.3 to 5.1 times more common in tumors from smokers than in tumors from nonsmokers, according to the study.
smoking (Score:2)
a pack a day (Score:1)
Now clearly im not saying smoking is healthy. But a pack a day is what most people around here would call extremely excessive
In other words, smoking produces mutants.. (Score:5, Funny)
Smoke if you want to be a super hero.
Re: (Score:2)
If I had points, I'd mod you up for that. LOL
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking some Philip Morris ad exec might try to spin this...
"Philip Morris - Working to improve the human race."
Re: (Score:2)
I figure more must be better, glad I just bought some more tobacco!
Vonnegut (Score:5, Funny)
"Here's the news: I am going to sue the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company, manufacturers of Pall Mall cigarettes, for a billion bucks! Starting when I was only twelve years old, I have never chain-smoked anything but unfiltered Pall Malls. And for many years now, right on the package, Brown & Williamson have promised to kill me. But I am eighty-two. Thanks a lot, you dirty rats. The last thing I ever wanted was to be alive when the three most powerful people on the whole planet would be named Bush, Dick and Colon." - Kurt Vonnegut
Re: (Score:1)
Well, he didn't die of cancer, but his sister did...
I cured my nicotine addiction (Score:1)
by switching to Oxycontin.
Can I force my niece to start smoking? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pot (Score:2)
Re: Pot (Score:3)
Most of us just vape and eat edibles these days. Burning plant matter is passe
Re: (Score:2)
Also the effects of every method is slightly different.
Re: (Score:2)
Edibles are hard to dose. I still smoke occasionally because I like the aroma's burning gives.
Also the effects of every method is slightly different.
They come nicely portioned into 5 or 10mg increments from my dispensary here in CO. This is why it's important to legalize and regulate substances instead of banning them in a panic.
Re: (Score:2)
Somehow, pot-smokers have universally come to the conclusion that smoking burning cannabis leaves (without a filter) is not at all dangerous to them in any of the ways that smoking burning tobacco leaves (through a filter) is.
That's because studies keep coming out that universally come to the conclusion that smoking burning cannabis leaves (without a filter) is not at all dangerous to them in any of the ways that smoking burning tobacco leaves (through a filter) is.
If you're mad that people are listening to scientific studies, perhaps you are an ignorant tool.
How many mutations for non smokers? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
How many mutation does a non smoker get during a year? The comparison would be interesting.
If you live long enough you will get cancer, no matter your habits.
A certain irreducible background incidence of cancer is to be expected regardless of circumstances: mutations can never be absolutely avoided, because they are an inescapable consequence of fundamental limitations on the accuracy of DNA replication, as discussed in Chapter 5. If a human could live long enough, it is inevitable that at least one of his or her cells would eventually accumulate a set of mutations sufficient for cancer to develop.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bo... [nih.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
If you live long enough you will get cancer
On the flip side it sure doesn't hurt to live in Poona/Nagpur India.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/b... [nih.gov]
Re:How many mutations for non smokers? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you live long enough you will get cancer, no matter your habits
Sure, we know death is a protection against cancer, but that does not answer the question. We are told smokers get 150 mutation a year, but how much does a non smoker get?
Re: (Score:2)
If you live long enough you will get cancer, no matter your habits
Sure, we know death is a protection against cancer, but that does not answer the question. We are told smokers get 150 mutation a year, but how much does a non smoker get?
Guess you didn't see it, I sure can't. I followed up my post with a chart mentioning India wouldn't be a bad place to live.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/b... [nih.gov]
The date of the chart, 1993 from works done in 1987 (how I read it - bottom of chart).
The chart doesn't break it into smoking and non-smoking, but I'd use the general population as reading above replies many don't smoke anymore. Even the article can't give you the question you desire as FTA "which contribute to different extents in different cancers".
Whi
Re: (Score:2)
The chart is about incidence of cancers, not mutations.
Cancer is the result of exposition to inducer factors (that cause mutations), and promoter factors (that help tumor growth). This means you can find two groups where one will have more mutations, but less cancers.
Indian food is well known to be an effective tumor growth inhibitor, hence I am not surprised to see low cancer levels for India.
Re: (Score:2)
The chart is about incidence of cancers, not mutations.
Cancer is the result of exposition to inducer factors (that cause mutations), and promoter factors (that help tumor growth). This means you can find two groups where one will have more mutations, but less cancers.
The chart was taken from the link I posted first, and it's all about the environment and mutations it can cause. Very interesting read, I came across it many years ago. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/b... [nih.gov] (the chart is listed in first paragraph as Table 23-1)
Indian food is well known to be an effective tumor growth inhibitor, hence I am not surprised to see low cancer levels for India.
Nagasaki Japan with a high incidence of stomach cancer - go figure.
Other factors in smoking (Score:2)
Every time I read an article like this I think we are oversimplifying things. How can it be that there are chain smokers that live well into old age, and light or non-smokers that die of lung and other cancers? Yes, there is some chance involved, but if you're a hard smoker, smoking a pack a day since you were 16, and every year you get so many mutations, shouldn't it hit you at some point? Yet there are people like This Guy [wikipedia.org] who are heavy smokers and die at age 96.
I think it also comes down to two different
Re:Other factors in smoking (Score:4, Informative)
Really? (Score:2)
Breathing in radioactive polonium containing smoke can do nice things for you.
So black and white... (Score:2)
If you smoke you're an addict.
If you smoke you'll get cancer and die
If you smoke you'll give cancer to everyone around you
If you vape, you'll also get cancer and die, and give it to everyone around you.
If you smoke you'll be come more addicted than a crack addict.
Second hand smoke has never been thoroughly proven, when given the levels of tobacco smoke a person can reasonably expect to encounter. I enjoy a pipe or a cigar no more than once a mon
Smoking what? (Score:2)
I'm waiting for a study that says the same thing about pot (soooo disgusting...way more than tobacco) and vaping.
baseline? (Score:2)
so, how many mutations per day/year does the average non smoker accumulate in the same tissues?
aka How far is this from the baseline ?
Increased risk would after all be a function of the difference between the baseline mutations and the change caused by the factor being studied. I suspect the assumption that NO mutation occurs without tobacco would be a serious error, or at least require some serious proof.
Re: (Score:3)
You can't cure stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
There have been studies for years that have proven that smoking kills. They have been called "cancer sticks" for decades. But regardless of the fact that people know that smoking kills people just keep on smoking and burning their money away. You can't cure stupid.
You can say the same about alcohol.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't cure stupid.
There have been studies for years that have proven that unhappy people are more likely to succumb to addiction. Smokers are depressed. Film at eleven... if anyone can be bothered to make it
Re: (Score:2)
"There have been studies for years that have proven that eating/swimming/walking/driving/skydiving/(anything you do in life) kills. They have been called 'death" for decades. But regardless of the fact that people know that eating/swimming/walking/driving/skydiving/ kills people just keep on eating/swimming/walking/driving/skydiving/ and burning their money away".
I got points to waste so I fixed it for you! It's been proven that life kills. Details at 11'. From a lot of research out there there are 3 thi
Re: (Score:2)
Your family history does add to the discussion. Those people in your family were probably smoking tobacco that was less-adulterated for a majority of their life.
What this study didn't mention were the hundreds of chemicals added to tobacco. I heard that Marlboro Reds have ~500 additives. Also, there's no mention of the impact of carbon monoxide to the body. There's no mention about chewing tobacco and it's ability to wreak havoc on the body's immune system, either.
Perhaps the additives are what's making tob
Re: (Score:2)
Additionally, most of them worked in manufacturing plants and were exposed to any number of industrial solvents and particulate matter. With the exception of the 3 that didn't die from cancer.
I agree. I smoke and I know it's bad for me. I deal with the minor effects and the hacking. I know the larger ones are looming. I know I need to quit for health reasons. I also know I smoke to self medicate. My big question is, is it better to go with the evil you know or the one you don't? Every medication tha
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, you can cure stupid... it's called education. Regardless, not everyone is getting one, let alone an equal one.
What about studies that show air pollution is as bad or worse than smoking three packs of cigarettes a day (select cities in China and India, of course)? Or that roadside exposure to diesel fumes can cause near-spontaneous, gene expression changes?
Is air pollution part of 'being stupid' ? How do you cure that?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure you can - keep letting them do it.
That doesn't work. By the time the cigarettes kill them, they have already reproduced.
Re: (Score:2)
Go back to Berkeley genius. By the way, the saying is "You can't fix stupid", by Ron White.
Wow.. you're so hip on denigrating people that are only trying to add a positive comment. And you started out so well with some good reasoning... Best to watch your punctuation when you're getting snippy and pedantic.
Go back to Berkeley, genius. By the way, the saying is, "You can't fix stupid," by Ron White.
FTFY
I'm probably gonna get down-voted for saying that, but I just had to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Remember that mutations aren't all bad mutations. A minority of mutations are beneficial. Evolution keeps score.
Is the risk of losing a lot greater than the chance of winning? Hell, yes, but we don't ban lottery tickets for that reason either.
Re: (Score:3)
Mutations are random changes. Connect some random wires to your motherboard. Not all new circuits are going to be bad, some can be beneficial!
Evolution has been undergoing trial and error for billions of years. You're at peak fitness. Er... from a genetics perspective. Messing with stuff at random at this point is going to, in the vast majority of cases,
Re: (Score:1)
Remember that mutations aren't all bad mutations. A minority of mutations are beneficial. Evolution keeps score.
You really need to play a few hours of a certain video game called "Left 4 Dead 2" then re-evaluate this position.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Remember that mutations aren't all bad mutations. A minority of mutations are beneficial. Evolution keeps score.
Is the risk of losing a lot greater than the chance of winning? Hell, yes, but we don't ban lottery tickets for that reason either.
If you're hoping that smoking a cigarette will turn you into spider man you're out of luck. You need a radioactive spider for that.
If a mutation occurred in a cell in a lung that had some benefit, it would just be in that one cell, it wouldn't spread to your body. There is no tangible benefit from a positively mutated single cell in your lung. So no benefit from lung cell mutation. However, we already know the bad that can happen, I won't even describe that.
Re: (Score:2)
If a mutation occurred in a cell in a lung that had some benefit, it would just be in that one cell, it wouldn't spread to your body. There is no tangible benefit from a positively mutated single cell in your lung. So no benefit from lung cell mutation. However, we already know the bad that can happen, I won't even describe that.
You're thinking short-term, single-organism.
A beneficial mutation can occur in your sperm or ovaries, which gives your offspring (or their offspring) an edge.
It doesn't have to be a big mutation for it to have a huge impact down the generations. Your little toes are small because some ancestor of yours had a beneficial mutation, and it made a tiny difference to how easy it is to walk or run, giving your ancestors an edge over those without that mutation, and those distant relatives without it are now extin
Re: (Score:2)
According to this study, smoking enhances evolution by increasing random mutation!
Re: (Score:2)
According to this study, smoking enhances evolution by increasing random mutation!
It also helps to combat climate-change. [theonion.com]
Re:Ban smoking (Score:4, Insightful)
"This is why smoking should be illegal..."
Social opprobrium is what kills off usage of a drug, not the law. Tobacco is less popular today than every drug on the DEA schedule, including heroin. If we put tobacco on the schedule, it would probably become more popular.
Re: (Score:2)
That's only because the "middle Americans" (read, "white folks") are skewing the heroin statistics into the stratosphere. I just moved out of New England, and the heroin epidemic there in white areas is booming. Nice quiet suburban towns are all getting methadone clinics because it's so out-of-control. Heroin use in black and Hispanic areas is down.
Re: (Score:2)
That's only because the "middle Americans" (read, "white folks") are skewing the heroin statistics into the stratosphere.
Well, they're still fairly statistically significant... We the mezcla will overtake them any day now, but not yet
Re: (Score:2)
We need some national "Save the whitey" day.
Re: (Score:2)
Reservations is the answer. Put them where they can't do too much damage.
Re: (Score:1)
Just as you shouldn't be able to drive around others without direct consent. I don't want to die from breathing in the tons of noxious fumes that your car pumps out.
Re: (Score:1)
Or you know, you could just move to a state where its already illegal to do it in public establishments. A curious thing happens then; people automatically know to ask for permission. Weird huh? And you didn't even have to shoot anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing good ever comes out of outright banning things. Didn't we learn anything from the prohibition era?
If people want to smoke you should let them. People should be allowed to take responsibility for themselves and make up their own decisions.
Re: (Score:2)
Any smoker who lights up around non-smokers without consent should be shot on the spot.
And concerning this, when walking on the street, such as on my way to and from work, I am more disturbed by breathing in exhaust from cars than from the occasional smoker who happens to walk in front of me.
Lets ban cars and shoot all drivers on the spot, yes?
Re: (Score:2)
And concerning this, when walking on the street, such as on my way to and from work, I am more disturbed by breathing in exhaust from cars than from the occasional smoker who happens to walk in front of me.
This is the same dipshit argument as when someone wants to compare guns to cars. Cars are a necessity for modern society. Cigarettes are not. They are designed to do harm, literally; mainstream tobacco is coated with additives, some of which are specifically intended to make it more addictive. In addition, cars keep getting cleaner and cleaner; a fairly typical commuter car will now leave the air in a big city cleaner than before it passed, albeit with higher CO2 concentrations.
Cars are crap in many ways, b
Re: (Score:2)
Cars are a necessity for modern society
This is debatable. You have grown so accustomed to our ultra-mobility culture, that cars seem like an essential object to exist, when in fact, they are not a necessity. Mobility can be achieved by means of mass-transit as well. Everybody needing to own a car is a luxury that has transformed our society, in many ways for the worst.
And if you look at the big picture, what do you think has made the larger impact on smog in towns and the general environment? Cars or cigarettes? If what scientists say is true an
Re: (Score:2)
You have grown so accustomed to our ultra-mobility culture, that cars seem like an essential object to exist,
No, son. Our culture has been led to the car so thoroughly and so much of our economy now depends on it that you could not shift overnight. While we could make them non-essential objects, they are now essential to our lifestyles.
Mobility can be achieved by means of mass-transit as well.
Yes, and I've argued as such repeatedly, and that's why I'm not going to suffer your bullshit superior tone. I have championed PRT and rail at every turn here on Slashdot, and you are the new guy who wants to tell me that I should be doing that without being familiar with my history
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, and I've argued as such repeatedly, and that's why I'm not going to suffer your bullshit superior tone.
Wow. What class of asshole are you? I was just stating my opinions whereas you:
This is the same dipshit argument...
No, son...
Are belittling me with every post. Now you will not suffer my "bullshit superior tone"? LoL
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. What class of asshole are you? I was just stating my opinions
If you aren't even aware of what a superior dick you were being, you're a fucking moron on top of it.
Are belittling me with every post. Now you will not suffer my "bullshit superior tone"? LoL
If you can't take it, don't dish it out.
Re: (Score:2)
Please quote me where I have "dished it out"... dumbass.
And just for the record, I am in my mid 30's, I have no drivers license, I have never owned a car. But yes, I live in Europe, not in the USA. In European culture, you don't need a car, especially not in the cities. So much for cars being essential.
Re:Ban smoking (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Ban smoking (Score:5, Insightful)
Speaking as someone with around 3,000 new mutations (I quit a few months ago), I can tell you I've paid in tax on cigarettes about 2 x the cost of any treatment I'll get for the problems it'll cause and of course I'll take out a lot less in pension assuming I make it to 68, which is quite unlikely. So you know, these "massive" costs are actually net benefits if you're going to start accounting.
O RLY? Have you done the math? In the USA, it's taxed federally and locally but that turns out to currently be about $2 per pack (used to be much lower). If you smoke one pack a day for 20 years, that's $14,600 in tax.
I looked up the cost and the typical cost to be an inpatient at a hospital is $1,600 per day. If you are in the hospital, you have eight days to die before you start taking up resources. Now, let's just say you start smoking at age 20 and get cancer after 15 years, so at age 35, you will begin your cancer treatment. You will likely survive a couple years and then die. The cost of the medication to fight cancer is $100,000 per year alone. Your two month decline to dying is going to rack up $96,000. You will expended more than $300,000 after paying $10,950 in cigarette excise tax.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
$2 per pack? Are you kidding me? It's £9.50 in the UK.
Well that's almost £70K (assuming the tax never changed) if you smoke a full pack a day for 20 years. However, that is more of a more recent development and probably why you quit smoking, because you literally couldn't afford to continue. You've probably paid £35K in total taxes, assuming you smoked a full pack a day. That said, the price of the cancer medicine is the same but in the UK, your health care system is eating the cost. This means that overall you are costing society more than you
Re: (Score:2)
What our healthcare system in the US is being eaten up with is fake foods and obese people. The costs of diabetes far outweigh the cost of anything else. I don't see a big push to tax the crap out of sugar except in NYC. Don't forget the other costs of obesity: Larger doors, larger chairs, larger everything. We all pay for this in addition to the health consequences and costs. Let's not forget heart disease, increased heart attacks, cholesterol issues, increased risk of stroke: the list goes on forever
Re: (Score:2)
What our healthcare system in the US is being eaten up with is fake foods and obese people.
Well, this issue is specifically fructose and addictive foods. A big issue is that corn is subsidized which means that stuff like HFCS is subsidized. The result is that processed foods is less expensive than many of crops. However, taxing sugars themselves is not the answer because you can have a healthy food with lots of sugar: e.g. apples. If you are going to tax something directly, we should be taxing based on glycemic load and fructose content. However, this brings up complicated issues like how mu
Re: (Score:2)
I understand the natural sugars. I should have been more specific.
Nifty approach on the tax/incentive. And yes, corporate governance has probably deteriorate so much that the rules should be rewritten.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm very good at watching the pea under the thimble, so don't try that one on me again.
Re: (Score:2)
Did I compare the amount I paid in tax to the total cost of cancer medication? No. I compared the tax I paid to the total cost of cancer medicine minus the total cost of the extra years of life I would gain, mostly drawing pension payments.
The problem is that this isn't about you but rather about smokers in general.
This is not including my biggest monthly bill which believe it or not isn't cigarette taxes but income and employment taxes.
And those taxes are allocated to many different things.
Tax on cigarettes is additional tax I pay.
Absolutely and that tax is not going to cover the cost of the medical bills when/if it gives you cancer.
I'm very good at watching the pea under the thimble, so don't try that one on me again.
The only thing I'm trying is to point out that smokers are a costly bunch of people to take care of when they get sick from smoking and that the cigarette tax isn't enough to make up for the amount you are taking out of the medical system. If everyone was a smoker and the re
Re: (Score:2)
Smoking costs the NHS approximately £2 billion a year to treat. The tax raised on cigarettes is approximately £12.3 billion. That includes both excise and VAT. So even though I'm not counting the number of years lost in pension and care costs, smokers fund around 10% of the NHS budget spent treating illnesses other than those smoking related.
I'm glad this whole thing has been cleared up.
Re: (Score:2)
Smoking costs the NHS approximately £2 billion a year to treat. The tax raised on cigarettes is approximately £12.3 billion.
Ha! It's cute that you think this problem is limited to your country and that you act like it's always been like this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The solution to the problem for countries where it is a problem, is to increase excise on cigarettes until income approximately matches expense.
i don't dispute this, i do dispute that it's already been adequately implemented.
I think in the UK he's right (Score:2)
Now, there's the little matter of ignoring all the incidental costs to smoking. The big one that I see is that tobacco _destroys_ land. It's a very wate
Re: (Score:2)
They don't pay the crazy sums for health care that we do (single payer's a _lot_ less costly). Their gov't doesn't allow their drug companies to gouge their population.
indeed, this means their healthcare system is paying the cost for him and that money comes from taxes. [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
This is why smoking should be illegal. It has no legitimate redeeming value, while causing massive costs due to health care, human losses, reduced quality of life, and a multitude of other problems. Furthermore, smokers should never be allowed to smoke around non-smokers without clear and direct consent. You don't have the right to cause me to develop cancer just because you have a disgusting habit. Any smoker who lights up around non-smokers without consent should be shot on the spot.
How about fuck off. There is one place you have control over the environment and other people and that's your home. If you don't like perfectly legal actions others are taking in public then you are totally free to fuck off back there and never come back out. You won't be missed and the rest of the grown ups can get on with their lives.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is criminalizing drugs, is you make a lot of people criminals, because of its addictive nature a lot of people will turn to the black market to get it.
We really as a culture need to un-cool drugs. It is less about legalization and more about getting people to not want to take it.
Back in the 1920's we had violent gangs pushing alcoholic beverages because it was made illegal. And now we have gangs pushing pot (in some states) and harder drugs who are just as violent if not more.
When you make a pro
Re: (Score:1)
the main difference is that the contents of tobacco are far more carcinogenic. Also, the quantity smoked in terms of cannabis is waaaay lower than that of a habitual tobacco smoker. Moderate to heavy cigarette smokers are smoking a cigarette every hour or more all day.
THC and Cannabidiols are not carcinogenic in and of themselves, it's only ingestion by smoking that can risk DNA damage [nih.gov]. Luckily there are other options with cannabis like edibles.
Re:Cannabis (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder how cannabis compares. There is no way smoking small particulate matter of any kind is healthy, and while it isn't as carcinogenic as tobacco, I would be extremely surprised to see if it didn't have long term health effects on the lungs. Only time will tell.
You're right, but with any kind of decent pot, how much do you have to smoke? With any of the high test shit from California or Colorado, one hit and you're seriously high.
Even as a carefree college student, I maybe peaked out at 8-10 one hits per day on a really carefree day, like some weird Saturday when there was no homework and a serious party atmosphere. Your typical responsible person with a job or even me in college most days? 1 to 3 one hits in the evening after work? That should have most people plenty stoned.
Now compare that to a serious smoker pulling down an entire pack (or more) of cigarettes per day. By about the third or forth cigarette, you're way past whatever pot could do.
Now of course, there are compulsive pot smokers who smoke much more, but I figure a compulsive pot smoker would have to be smoking 5 or more joints a day to compare to a pack a day smoker. I just don't see how you could do that with most of the pot in circulation these days, especially in places where its legal or nearly so and is really strong.
Re: (Score:2)
Now of course, there are compulsive pot smokers who smoke much more, but I figure a compulsive pot smoker would have to be smoking 5 or more joints a day to compare to a pack a day smoker. I just don't see how you could do that with most of the pot in circulation these days, especially in places where its legal or nearly so and is really strong.
What? That's easy. The only way it's difficult is that it's expensive, if you don't know the right people.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the cost I would find the obstacle, it's the strength.
If there's 16 waking hours in a day, that's an entire joint of premium marijuana about every 3 hours. I just don't think that's sustainable, unless being really stoned is all you need to do for your entire life.
Maybe if you really worked at it, you could build up enough tolerance to make it work, but not in my experience.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe if you really worked at it, you could build up enough tolerance to make it work, but not in my experience.
You haven't been anywhere near the emerald triangle, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
I was averaging up the "lung impact" of pot smoking with the idea that a joint would be smoked with deeper inhalation and longer hold times than a typical cigarette smoker.
That being said, I've known at least one heavy pot smoker who was a former cigarette smoker who smoked his joints more like a cigarette smoker smokes cigarettes, but even he didn't manage 5 a day.
Re: (Score:2)
Definitely carcinogens in cannabis too. I think I read once that there are more than a regular cigarette.
Regardless, you get some people smoking multiple packs of cigarettes a day. You don't have that problem with cannabis. Does anyone (besides serious pot heads) smoke more than one in a day?
Still bad for you, but as a numbers game, it's not AS bad.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how cannabis compares. There is no way smoking small particulate matter of any kind is healthy, and while it isn't as carcinogenic as tobacco, I would be extremely surprised to see if it didn't have long term health effects on the lungs. Only time will tell.
Curiously enough, the non-biased studies seem to show that cannabis does NOT seem to contribute significantly to COPD, and may even be ANTI-carcinogenic. I know it seems impossible, but them's the facts.
Even the Canadian Medial Association Journal [nih.gov] stated in 2009, Article "Does smoking marijuana increase the risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease?" that "Given the consistently reported absence of an association between use of marijuana and abnormal diffusing capacity or signs of macroscopic emphysem
Re:This is why everyone should vape. (Score:5, Informative)
I quit smoking by using a vape and gradually toning down the nicotine levels in the fluid from 18mg to 0mg. After that I found myself using the vape less and less until finally I quit that too.
For anyone who doesn't smoke, don't start smoking OR vaping. If you are already a smoker, I wholeheartedly recommend giving vaping a try.
Re: (Score:2)
Nicotine is a really good recreational drug. Nothing wrong with vaping.
Re:This is why everyone should vape. (Score:5, Informative)
That's complete BS. First, there is no oil whatsoever in eliquids. Second, vaporisers work by heating a coil which heats cotton wicked with eliquid. If it were burning, you would certainly know it because you would be getting dry hits.
Perhaps you shouldn't talk about things that you don't understand.
Re:This is why everyone should vape. (Score:4, Insightful)
Vaping != burning. Vaping = boiling. When vaping = burning, your device is dry and the user definitely can tell.
Re:This is why everyone should vape. (Score:5, Informative)
There was a recent study that showed MOST models of vaporizers still burn the nicotine oil to "vaporize" it. So you're still releasing most the same exact carcinogens, plus you're inhaling burning baby oil. Maybe this is not so safe after all. (Don't ask for a citation. It was posted here on /., find it yourself.)
You do realise alot of the bad stuff is added to the tobacco or is in the paper for various reason. It's not just the nicotine which is relatively harmless on its own.
Re: (Score:2)
There was a recent study that showed MOST models of vaporizers still burn the nicotine oil to "vaporize" it. So you're still releasing most the same exact carcinogens, plus you're inhaling burning baby oil. Maybe this is not so safe after all. (Don't ask for a citation. It was posted here on /., find it yourself.)
Even if this is true, it still doesn't discount that some people use vaping to get off smoking and eventually quit altogether. Inhaling carcinogens for a few more months instead of for life, is a positive step.
Re: (Score:1)
Thank you FUD monkey. You are doing your job perfectly. With your help big tobacco and big pharma will successfully kill people in numbers beyond Godwin levels.
You see when it was posted https://sc [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I quit smoking by using a vape and gradually toning down the nicotine levels in the fluid from 18mg to 0mg. After that I found myself using the vape less and less until finally I quit that too.
For anyone who doesn't smoke, don't start smoking OR vaping. If you are already a smoker, I wholeheartedly recommend giving vaping a try.
What was your "ramp" like? IOW, how long did the entire process take from 18 mg to 0 mg? How long at 0 mg before you were able to set the vape down, too? How long had you been smoking, and how many cigs/packs a day before you started vaping? How long did you continue to smoke cigs while vaping?
Genuinely curious here.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody should vape either. Quit polluting my air, faggot.
So you don't drive then?
Re: (Score:2)
and smoke the good stuff we do here: http://natsherman.com/ [natsherman.com]
Tad spendy if they don't list prices and have an FAQ answering "'WHY DO I PAY MORE FOR YOUR CIGARETTES?"
http://www.az-smokes.com/ [az-smokes.com] for those of us that don't need the glamour.
Re: (Score:1)
Gosh, yes. R.I.P. Carl Sagan.
Re: (Score:2)
Cancer has been cured, many times.
Just not reliably in humans.
Re: (Score:2)
You sleep 14 hours a day?