Smoking

[Will]

I've smoked maybe a dozen cigarettes in my life. I enjoyed the taste of a few, but most of them just taste like ash to me. So I can't see the appeal of smoking cigarettes. Cigars on the other hand taste great and smell nice; I enjoy them. And I could see pipe tobacco being nice as well.

 

But I am aware of the negative effects.. but can someone tell me what would be worse? To smoke cigarettes, pipes or cigars? And just how bad is drinking, relative to smoking? Because unlike smoking, where i'll have a cigar once a year to celebrate something, I do drink on a more regular basis.

[Tormod]

I think all three are bad for your health. Cigars may be a bit less problematic simply because people who chainsmoke tand to smoke cigarettes and not cigars. As for pipes I do not know, but I remember reading some studies about problems with fungus in the lungs etc due to the moisture that comes from sucking in a pipe over long periods of time.

 

Drinking alcohol in large amounts is a Bad Thing because alcohol is a poison and can have severe effects. Drinking a beer now and then probably has very few bad effects. Scientists keep arguing whether a little alcohol on a regular basis is better than none at all - we regularly see articles about "a glass of wine a day keeps the doctor away" here in Norway. Supposedly a regular intake of wine is supposed to stop heart problems. The problem with this is that I would assume the recommended intake level to be very different from person to person and as such it is not a good idea to drink alcohol for it's effects on your health unless you discuss it with a doctor...

 

So I'd say smoking is very bad and has absolutely no good side effects for you, while drinking some alcohol now and then will not hurt you. Binge drinking is VVVerryy Bbaaaddd but nature has a tendency to make it difficult to avoid at times.

[bumab]

Yeah- the main issue to think about with tobacco is how much you consume. Cigarettes seem to get sucked down a lot faster then the occasional cigar. I've seen studies where cigars are shown to contain 5-10 times as much tar as a single cigarette.... but most people don't regularly smoke cigars, as you said. It's all about moderation. Pipes are the same way- many people smoke one bowl-full a night at most (at least that I know). I'm not sure the equivalent amount of cigarettes, but I'll bet it's less then the number of cigs many smoke daily.

 

Same with alcohol- moderation... one a day is probably ok, but you most likely don't want to average more then that, and wine is supposedly the most healthy form, although homebrewed beer has been shown to contain massive amounts of vitamins (thanks to the yeast) :friday:

[C1ay]

I think one is just as dangerous as another when abused. I know cigarette smokers that only like an occasional cigarette after eating. A single cigarette would seem to me less dangerous than a single cigar. Some people smoke 3 packs a day and they are merely searching for an early grave. I know cigar smokers though that smoke 2 or 3 a day. They are certainly worse off than the occasional cigarette smoker. I also know of pipe smokers in both categories, occasional and regular.

 

It is the same for alcohol. Studies have shown a daily glass of wine can be beneficial. Obviously a daily keg of wine would do in your liver. I know alcohoics that consume more in a day than I do in a year. I know a few people that have literally died of alcohol poisoning.

[Will]

the way i figured it moderation was the main thing. like with anything, with moderation i figure i won't be abusing myself. but the thing about smoking cigarettes is that you're actually inhaling smoke and it feels harsh on your lungs; it must be bad for you.

 

cigars on the other hand (or pipes) i would never inhale; that'd be suicide. but i imagine they're bad for your gums, teeth, tongue, etc..

 

What Tormod said about fungus in the lungs is absolutely gross. That's a good way to make people not try smoking pipes.. cause quite frankly that's turned me off of the idea.

[UncleAl]

Tobacco is bad for you in every ingested form in so many proven ways. If you inhale combustion products - the worst of all - the nastiness of the results is tied to the temperature of combustion.

 

Cigarettes are by far the worst of the worst - the highest combustion temp, deep frequent inhalation, frequent use, and an amazing array of chemical additives,

 

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/tobacco.zip

(big file)

 

Pipes are a big improvement in temperature and administration, but their tobaccos also have a rich array of additives. Cigars are the most benign. The tobacco is mostly unprocessed, additives are few if any, the combustion temp is low, the length of the cigar traps a lot of nastiness, and nobody smokes 20 cigars/day.

 

Marijuana is widely smoked. The real world epidemiological results are chronic stupidity, lack of motivation, and a cough from inhaling smoke. If you are a student trapped in American zero-goal education, the first two will make you fit like a hand in a glove.

[Biochemist]

.. but can someone tell me what would be worse? To smoke cigarettes, pipes or cigars? And just how bad is drinking, relative to smoking? Because unlike smoking, where i'll have a cigar once a year to celebrate something, I do drink on a more regular basis.

A couple of points:

 

1) On smoking cigars versus cigarettes: most cigar smokers do not inhale. Most cigars are far worse ( in terms of toxic load) per gram than cigarettes. However, since cigar smokers usually don't inhale the smoke, the damage done is net-net smaller. The damage appears to be (at least partially) related to the amount of tissue surface area that comes in contact with ths toxic load.

 

Evidence for the relative damage of cigars is found in the incidence of head and neck cancers in cigar smokers (higher that the non-smoking population). I suspect the incidence of head and neck cancers is higher in cigar smokers than in cigarette smokers as well, but I do not know of any data.

 

Some folks DO inhale cigars. Cuban folks are famous for it. These folks are probably at very high risk.

 

2) On alcohol- it appears that moderate drinking (defined explicitly as two or fewer standard drinks per day) is beneficial. There are several documented benefits, including improvements in digestion and decrements in the risk of heart attack. It was initially thought that wine was better, but I think it has been shown that regular distilled beverages and beer are about the same benefit, at least as far as heart attack prevention is concerned. The presumed mechanism is that moderate alcohol concumption raises your HDL. HDL is associated with mitigation of heart attack risk. I don't know the mechanism for improvement in digestion.

 

Higher alcohol doses are certainly damaging, and not just to your liver. Chronic excessive use of alcohol is nephrotoxic, neurotoxic, hepatotoxic, and probably damages your microvasculature as well (although that could be a consequential effect of one of the other toxicities). And certainly, acute alcohol toxicity is lethal.

 

Incidentally, alcohol is addictive in the same sense that we use the word for opiates, cocaine or barbiturates. The addicition potential is low (that is, the fraction of users that become addicted is lower that other examples, like cocaine) but the addiction potential is real. Addiction per se is not a risk. Caffeine is addictive. The risk accociated with addiction relates to the potential to become addictied and the physiological damage caused by withdrawal.

 

Alcohol addicts in withdrawal go through "DTs", delerium tremens. The risk of death from DTs is significantly higher than than the risk of death from heroin withdrawal. Heroin withdrawaly is uncomfortable. Alcohol withdrawal is lethal.

[Biochemist]

Marijuana is widely smoked. The real world epidemiological results are chronic stupidity, lack of motivation, and a cough from inhaling smoke. If you are a student trapped in American zero-goal education, the first two will make you fit like a hand in a glove.

I still think you ought to run for senator.

[Queso]

I still think you ought to run for senator.

 

let's all run for senator, seriously.

[TeleMad]

As for pipes I do not know, but I remember reading some studies about problems with fungus in the lungs etc due to the moisture that comes from sucking in a pipe over long periods of time.

 

I don't have A&P text with me at the moment, so I can't give details, but at least one fungus normally lives in our lungs. But for a healthy person it is kept under control. It might be that smoking doesn't introduce the fungus but instead does damage that thereby allows the preexisting fungus to become a problem.

[Will]

Tobacco is bad for you in every ingested form in so many proven ways. If you inhale combustion products - the worst of all - the nastiness of the results is tied to the temperature of combustion.

 

Cigarettes are by far the worst of the worst - the highest combustion temp, deep frequent inhalation, frequent use, and an amazing array of chemical additives,

 

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/tobacco.zip

(big file)

 

Pipes are a big improvement in temperature and administration, but their tobaccos also have a rich array of additives. Cigars are the most benign. The tobacco is mostly unprocessed, additives are few if any, the combustion temp is low, the length of the cigar traps a lot of nastiness, and nobody smokes 20 cigars/day.

 

Marijuana is widely smoked. The real world epidemiological results are chronic stupidity, lack of motivation, and a cough from inhaling smoke. If you are a student trapped in American zero-goal education, the first two will make you fit like a hand in a glove.

 

i appreciate your comments. they're helpful. i'll download that zip file and take a look.

[Queso]

Marijuana is widely smoked. The real world epidemiological results are chronic stupidity, lack of motivation, and a cough from inhaling smoke.

some people, yes.

some people, no.

this quote just proves the lack of knowledge on marijuana throughout the world.

 

and epidemiology is the study and control of diseases, not minor psychological stimulants, such as marijuana.

[Biochemist]

this quote just proves the lack of knowledge on marijuana throughout the world.

...Or it shows an aversion to people with slurred speech, bad breath and the '"munchies". :)

and epidemiology is the study and control of diseases, not minor psychological stimulants, such as marijuana.

Well, close. Epidemiology is the study of propagation (not control) of disease. One could easily argue that addiction or dependency is a disease, so the study of marijuana use could be construed as epidemiology.

 

And marijuana is not a stimulant. It is a depressant . :)

[Queso]

.

And marijuana is not a stimulant. It is a depressant . :)

 

is it? i think that is an opinion seeing as how if affects people differently.

also, it totally depends on the person, and the mood, and there are just way too many variables to call it a depressant.

 

i'm sorry biochemist but i must say it seems as if you you have been flanked with the negative propoganda, and accepted it as the truth.

 

where did you get your facts, the government? :)

[Queso]

Epidemiology is the study of propagation (not control) of

bummer, the dictionary was partially wrong.

[Will]

where did you get your facts, the government? :)

 

hahaha.. please tell me you aren't one of those leftist anti-government types. i've got plenty of buddies who smoke chronic, and i'd have to agree that the long-term/short-term effects of marijuana seem to differ from person to person.

 

i recall hearing that the netherlands was doing some research on the issue of marijuana side-effects. i believe they had 200,000+ people participate in the surveys and tests and found that it can cause physchosis with long term usage.

 

when you see ads saying marijuana's bad, its true. just like tobacco. smoking is rough on the lungs and i imagine the chemicals aren't so hot for the rest of your body either. but in terms of the way the US government portrays marijuana as almost worse than some of the other ones, i just laugh.. but i'm also a Canadian, so smoking weed isn't uncommon here.

[Biochemist]

where did you get your facts, the government? :)

Actually I am a Doctor of Pharmacy (among other things). Marijuana is classed as a central nervous system depressant. In most individuals , it acts that way. The best reference for the pharmacology of CNS depressants is probably the text The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics by Goodman and Gilman. (at least is used to be authored by G&G- I have an old version)