Smoking is Worse Than You Imagined

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/opinion/sunday/smoking-is-worse-than-you-imagined.html?action=click&contentCollection=Books&module=MostEmailed&version=Full&region=Marginalia&src=me&pgtype=article

by danso • 13 years ago

87 125 13 years ago

nytimes.com

stevewillows9• 13 years ago

As a smoker who is constantly in the 'I'm quitting..' phase, is there a reason that cigarettes are so bad? Is the burning of tobacco itself lethal or are the additives the principal killers?

Synaesthesia4• 13 years ago

It's just the burning of any plant material and inhaling the smoke, that's bad. Smoke is little particles of ash and soot that clog up your lungs. Smoking weed also messes up your lungs.

stevewillows9• 13 years ago

Seems logical.

I don't touch weed at all. I vape part-time and have found that it helps with the nicotine craving, but man... I love smoking. Reading articles like this push me further and further away from 'analogs', as we say.

Addictions aside, vaping is a better alternative for days when I have meetings and have to work around others.

BugBrother3• 13 years ago

Snus is a relevant data point to support Synaesthesia's claim. It is (non smoke) tobacco, but won't give you cancer or destroy your lungs (still not healthy with nicotine, of course, but many times less bad).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snus

stevewillows9• 13 years ago

good Lord.. that's not for me.

russelldavis• 13 years ago

won't give you cancer.

Untrue. "Smokeless tobacco is a major cause of oral cancer, pancreatic cancer, and esophageal cancer."

http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/features/snus-tobacco...

Munksgaard• 13 years ago

It can fuck up your mouth considerably though.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3714813/

schainks• 13 years ago

I think it's safe to say that the burning of something that you directly inhale is the principal killer, regardless of what's in it. When burning organic matter, there tend to be many byproducts produced. Often more harmful than not. Odds are we didn't evolve to breathe them on a constant basis. If we had, this stuff wouldn't give us mouth and lung diseases so much, would it?

If we had evolved to tolerate doing this to ourselves, then we wouldn't be arguing about this. IMHO, some people do seem to adapt better to burning things and inhaling them. BUT I'm not going to test that out on myself for 20 years only come out the other side with lung cancer (or worse). It's a crapshoot, really. Your call. Plus, I like the fact my sense of taste and smell works better than it did when I was a smoker.

If the nicotine in tobacco didn't give you the high you feel when smoking, would people still be smoking and getting cancer? Probably not. People like getting high. Take that away and what reason is there to smoke? But I digress...

So, to answer your question, "all of the above". You smoke to get high from the nicotine, but the other shit in the smoke is what your body can't tolerate (generally speaking, as yes I agree there are many instances of people living perfectly normal lives smoking the whole time).

I'd take up smoking e-cigarettes if you feel it's safer to you (long term) than smoking cigarettes.

stevewillows9• 13 years ago

yeah, I'm progressing toward vaping full time -- but it's the habit. I could set my watch to it. haha

When I quit last year (no vaping), the first thing I noticed was how incredibly salty restaurant food was. After years of working with essential oils (for soap making and such), my nose leaves much to be desired.

If you do try vaping, try an iTaste variable voltage battery with a dual-coil pro-tank. Also get an e-liquid that's 50/50 between vegetable glycerine (good vapor -- 'clouds') and propylene glycol (throat hit).

This is what I'm using now, and as a result I've lowered my 'analog' intake by half.

DanBC2• 13 years ago

The tar is pretty harmful.

This youtube video is interesting. I'm not sure how accurate it is. http://youtu.be/k-MRkC5DqFQ

agumonkey• 13 years ago

The sad synergy between the two...

jessedhillon2• 13 years ago

How long will it be until we can definitive statements about e-cigarettes? I hate being in a bar or club, or fucking anywhere really, and seeing people smoking those things indoors. But if asked whether that smoke is actually harming me, I couldn't say.

hueving• 13 years ago

Would it help to know that it isn't smoke? There is no reason at this point to assume there is harm from them (i.e. give them the benefit of the doubt). The vapor is propylene glycol, which is the same thing used to generate 'fog' at concerts, etc.

It's too bad they are calling them e-cigarettes because it triggers responses like yours where people apply their notions of regular cigarettes to them. The only thing they actually have in common is nicotine, which is not the harmful part of regular tobacco products.

stevewillows9• 13 years ago

On the hobby side of the vape scene, there's a concerted effort to remove the 'cigarette' from the equation. A lot of the original modders started with flashlights (as far as I am told).

Years ago I participated in a study to test the effects of smoke machines. I was working at a large arcade that threw huge parties with DJs and such on the weekend. Naturally, we had smoke machines. The researchers found that the PG had no effect on our respiratory system, which was actually what concluded that vaping would be a good alternative to smoking.

syllogism• 13 years ago

E-cigarette use is almost entirely in place of cigarette use, so it should probably be encouraged. I doubt the vapour is dangerous second hand.

Synaesthesia4• 13 years ago

I wouldn't say it's "not dangerous" but definitely a lot less dangerous and offensive than smoke. 100%

cheald• 13 years ago

As far as I know, the only emission from must e-cigs is water vapor. I'm not a fan of second hand smoke at all, but a friend if mine uses an e-cigarette and it doesn't bother me or my wife in the slightest.

Given my experience with them, I'm of the opinion that people who gripe about them are being judgmental based on the association with smoking actual cigarettes, which is legitimately disgusting.

humbledrone3• 13 years ago

Water is not vaporized in e-cigarettes, typically propylene glycol and nicotine are. Thus the emissions are propylene glycol, nicotine, and possibly whatever other impurities were vaporized due to poor manufacturing. Multiple analyses have shown bad things present in various e-cigarette liquids. Perhaps the higher quality liquids are more pure, but who knows?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/health/policy/23fda.html

KC8ZKF2• 13 years ago

I think it is pretty certain that car exhaust is harmful. Did you drive today?

collyw2• 13 years ago

I always find the anti-smoking crowd incredibly hypocritical when they jump in a car without second thought. There are many cities in the world where it is claimed the pollution is equivalent to x cigarettes per day.

I also wonder how many control experiments are done to deduce that "second hand smoke" is causing many of the problems described, as opposed to air pollution from diesel engines.

jgroome3• 13 years ago

That's a shame. The "smoke" from e-cigarettes is just vapour, and no more harmful to the people around the user than steam from a kettle.

However, there's a discussion to be had here, and it's possibly more important than the one surrounding cigarettes and second-hand smoke. It's a brand new industry and a brand new habit that people are only starting to adjust to.

Ecig manufacturers are, at present, allowed to advertise their product publicly, and sell them as a lifestyle choice. They're even allowed to advertise on TV, something that the tobacco boys haven't been able to do for a very long time (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2517504/VIP-E-cigare...).

As an ecig user myself I find myself using it indoors regularly. I'm harming nobody but myself with it. But that's the problem - it's normalised the recreational ingestion of nicotine, and it's only going to become more popular.

Smokers, even reformed smokers like myself, aren't going to change their habits unless they're forced to do so. So while many people are put off by indoor ecig use, until the law changes to forbid it, you're just going to have to deal with it.

bmelton• 13 years ago

And the counter to that is that 1) legislation has begun in a number of places, New York, Chicago, etc., to ban the indoor smoking of e-cigarettes because, at least primarily 2) the anti-smoking campaign so effectively illustrated the dangers of second-hand smoke, that people are now conditioned to equate smoke with evil (even smokers, like myself) so, despite the fact that e-cig 'smoke' is actually just vapor, many people are put off of it because of the stigma.

Also, at least in New York, the legislative bodies expressed great concern that e-cig users could gasp actually be smoking liquid THC instead of liquid THC, which still wouldn't be harmful, but they're worried about the evils that would certainly infest the hearts of men as a result.

stevewillows9• 13 years ago

I vape part-time and sneak in a pull here and there in public -- but it still feels wrong despite the lack of pollution.

This said, the vape scene is awesome for us hackers. The e-cigs that look more like cigarettes don't have as much of a scene, and aren't as enjoyable as a variable voltage, low-ohm 'pipe'.

MichaelGG4• 13 years ago

But that's the problem - it's normalised the recreational ingestion of nicotine

What's the problem with recreational ingestion of nicotine? It's a light stimulant; I'm not sure why this is any worse than caffeine. And certainly isn't worse than other medications like opiates or amphetamines.

I'm not a cigarette smoker, although I love cigars and probably have one or two a month on average.

humbledrone3• 13 years ago

That's a shame. The "smoke" from e-cigarettes is just vapour

Saying "just vapor" means nothing here; consider "just chlorine vapor," for instance. Obviously the substance that has been vaporized is the important part. The most common e-cigarette vapor, propylene glycol, does have very low toxicity. But you still might not want to inhale it constantly -- no longitudinal, long-term study has been performed that simulates the e-cigarette use of PG and shows beyond doubt that it is safe.

and no more harmful to the people around the user than steam from a kettle.

Nicotine is a known carcinogen, and e-cigarette vapor contains nicotine. Tea kettles do not release vaporized nicotine. The e-cigarette vapor may have a low concentration of nicotine after being exhaled, but again, nobody has extensively studied the results of breathing second-hand e-cigarette vapor over a long time period. Your assertion is completely unsupported by evidence.

I'm harming nobody but myself with it.

You cannot back that up with evidence. This is your guess, and it could be wrong.

Now, I happen to think that it is _likely_ that e-cigarettes will be shown to be much less dangerous than tobacco cigarettes. But my opinion, just like yours, is meaningless since it's not backed up by evidence.

mattmanser• 13 years ago

The problem is, and you can't see this because you're a delusional addict, is that allowing e-cigs is like legalizing a highly addictive food substance and then allowing McDonald's to make a burger out of it. It might be better for smokers than smoking, but it's still a drug addiction.

And then worse you're blowing that highly addictive substance into the air in a confined place and stinking the place out with a foul chemical smell of 'chocolate' or 'mint' or some other 'pleasant' smell just because you're so addicted you can't even go a couple of hours without your hit.

If you were a normal person, and not a junkie, you'd never smoke those things in public because you'd see how bizarre, odd and selfish thing it is to do.

So no, it's not just 'vapour' and you've got no right to try and convince people otherwise because you are, ultimately, a junkie justifying your addiction.

I'm a junkie too, but at least I admit it.

ohwp• 13 years ago

"The "smoke" from e-cigarettes is just vapour"

No it's not. "The levels of the toxicants were 9–450 times lower than in cigarette smoke"

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2013/03/05/tobac...

MichaelGG4• 13 years ago

What exactly do you hate about it? You're unsure of the harm, and quick searches seem to indicate no harm, so is it just the aesthetic?

jessedhillon2• 13 years ago

Mostly psychological and irrational. I don't like the feel of the vapor in my face, it definitely feels and smells off-putting. It's the unseemliness, the (my Wikipedia-level understanding) lack of scientific evidence backing up claims of non-harm. And if you do it in a theater it's distracting.

r-s• 13 years ago

Ive often wondered the same. I occasionally chew on some nicotine gum (usually 1mg, then an hour later another 1mg) as I find it helps me focus. I suspect its better then smoking, but by how much seems fairly unknown.

MichaelGG4• 13 years ago

How on earth could chewing gum be anywhere nearly as harmful as actually smoking tobacco-based products? Nicotine is as close to harmless as any effective medication. So the "by how much" is as large as possible.

scott_karana• 13 years ago

Nicotine is as close to harmless as any effective medication

Yes, the smoking is worse than the nicotine, but how many other over-the-counter medications have an LD50 potentially as low as 30mg/kg? That's insanely high toxicity.

Spilling nicotine on yourself causes death. That should be sobering.

hansy• 13 years ago

So smoking tobacco is bad. Got it. Now what about marijuana? Less bad?

I don't think I've ever read a report on marijuana yellow-taped with as many warnings and dangers as those found in tobacco reports. Is this because not enough evidence has been gathered around the dangers of weed?

spand• 13 years ago

The substance is one thing, but volume is another. Are people smoking 'a pack' or two of marijuana every day for decades?

alan_cx• 13 years ago

Yes. Assuming a "pack" is 20 joints. Easily. I know by name plenty of people who treat joints like cigarettes.

Personally, I think a big part of the problem is the tobacco in the joint. I'd like to see a safe or safer tobacco replacement for rolling joints with. I know they are other ways to consume pot, a joint is the most convenient. All the things you can do with a ciggy on the go, you can do with a joint on the go. <HNHumourbypasstag>Driving for example.....</HNHumourbypasstag>

swombat3• 13 years ago

Weed is just as bad to smoke as tobacco, especially since it's often (though not always) mixed with tobacco.

One big difference, though, is that weed itself is only very mildly physically addictive, and in a small percentage of the population. This is as compared with tobacco, which is more addictive than heroin, for pretty much everyone.

Also, weed contains chemicals, like THC, which are not so harmful, and can be ingested in ways other than smoking (e.g. inhalers). And unlike cigarettes it has benefits as a painkiller for people for whom other painkillers no longer work (e.g. terminal cancer patients, who probably don't need to worry about getting lung cancer 20 years from now).

Overall the scorecard seems to be:

Smoking weed is probably just as bad as smoking cigarettes, but has a number of benefits over cigarettes and is nowhere near as addictive. That makes it less harmful overall.

WA• 13 years ago

Tobacco (nicotine) is also only mildly physically addictive. The main part is psychological addiction.

Weed has also a number of negative side effects over cigarettes. THC, after all, is a psychoactive drug and some people develop a psychosis from smoking weed. This doesn't happen when smoking tobacco.

It depends entirely on what you're comparing here. Do you compare smoking 10 joints vs. 10 cigarettes or 1 joint vs 10 cigarettes (per day? per week? per month?)? If one smokes as much weed as tobacco, he might develop way worse symptoms than someone who "just" smokes cigarettes.

seivan• 13 years ago

Hmm, there was this one period where I had a flat mate who smoked, so I smoked with him, regularly every day. When he left, I stopped smoking.... cold turkey. He was the one acquiring the cigarettes and he was the one going on smoke breaks at the evenings, I just went along and got one from him.

I don't mind smoking a cigarette, but I never found the urge to do so. I jokingly tell people I can't get addicted to cigarettes even though I smoked almost every day for 6 months.

Never found myself addicted to tobacco. Chips on the other hand...

hmsimha5• 13 years ago

FYI mixing weed with tobacco is purely a cultural phenomenon. This is something that I have never heard of being done in the U.S.

DanBC2• 13 years ago

Cannabis is illegal. To experiment with cannabis requires special government licences.

Population studies are hard because it is illegal and because the product is so variable.

The illegeity of cannabis means that some of the health warnings are ignored as anti-cannabis propaganda.

Ygg23• 13 years ago

Jaywalking is also illegal. Yet people jaywalk all the time...

And from what I've heard the hazard of micro particles emitted when warmed goes like this: fireplace > weed > smoke. However smoking is more addictive and weed has positive substances that decrease risk of cancer.

Best idea is not smoke weed, but ingest it. Avoid cigarrets and never have a real fireplace inside. Just stick a picture of a fireplace and add a heating element behind it.

k-mcgrady• 13 years ago

AFAIK it's just as bad as smoking tobacco (I'm pretty sure I read that it's similar to smoking several cigarettes). However there are ways to 'take' marijuana which remove the dangers that come with smoking it (vaporising).

tsotha3• 13 years ago

A two-pack-a-day smoker is smoking forty cigarettes. A weed smoker is smoking, what, maybe the equivalent of two? I've no doubt on a puff-for-puff basis weed is just as bad or worse. But quantity matters.

argonaut3• 13 years ago

I reviewed the literature on the effects of marijuana for a school project a few years ago. What is remarkable is that one joint is actually less harmful than one cigarette, and that vaporizers and methods that don't involve inhaling smoke are basically risk-free. There are studies out there that have actually shown THC / cannabidiol to have slight anticarcinogenic effects, though that's all highly experimental (I think in a lab setting).

The evidence for marijuana causing psychosis is extremely thin. Basically the strongest evidence out there are observational population studies (not controlled) that found there is a slight correlation between marijuana use and eventual development of psychosis.

The obvious problem is that correlation != causation. It seems pretty reasonable to postulate that people who are mentally unstable are also more likely to try and seek solace/release in drugs.

timonv• 13 years ago

Smoking costs billions? Productivity? An 'even higher' increase in risk of lungcancer? And there are no other factors at play at all? So now it's going to be a war on smokers again, is it? What a terrible causation-correlation fuck up.

ftr, I quit smoking a year ago. And happy I did.

JoeAltmaier• 13 years ago

Yeah the article sucks. It also takes pains to throw blame around with no citation and no logic. Its apparently the fault of tobacco companies alone, because they are evil. Not for instance the smokers. Or those dang filters that apparently are just as bad as tobacco. Who's fault are those?

Joona• 13 years ago

So why is no country banning smoking? If the current smokers are a problem, maybe you could give out "smoking licenses"... (Yes, I hate it.)

pmr_5• 13 years ago

Where I live (Europe) tax income through cigarette sales is substantive. Some countries even have refrained from further increasing taxes or lowered the planned increases on cigarettes because the last raises have caused a drop in tax income.

I imagine prohibiting cigarettes would lead to a huge outcry on all sides of the political spectrum fueled by lobbyist decrying the end of the free world. There also would be a large economic impact on all the retailers, logistics companies, promoters, distributors, and addiction management industries (nicotine patches, e-cigarettes, and what not). By "large impact" I mean that they would be gone for good. I guess this would still mean a net win for society and health care costs at large, but those measures are always hard to justify and not a very popular decision to make. That's why politicians tend to refrain from making them.

cromulent• 13 years ago

Tasmania proposed something similar, basically that anyone born after 2000 would not be able to purchase cigarettes. Singapore proposed the same thing.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-23/tas-smoking-ban-facing...

However, I think neither proposal has been accepted.

vacri• 13 years ago

Because smoking is still a powerful political issue, both in terms of smokers and lobbyists. Cigarettes here in Australia are nearly $1 each, and all cigarettes must be sold in an olive drab box with a graphic picture of a diseased body part and health warning - plus the packages must now be hidden from view by the vendor. The rather wealthy tobacco companies fight it all the way, right up to petitioning the UN trade bodies on their own dime.

Sometimes it's quite amusing - the argument against the olive drab packaging was "it's a waste of time, the colour of the packaging won't change tobacco sales", to which the only sane response is "then why are you taking out multiple full-page ads in every paper?".

You also can't just make it illegal overnight, since it's a notoriously difficult drug to give up. Hence it's being gradually phased out.

6d0debc071• 13 years ago

Bad precedents. War on drugs. Prohibition.

bromagosa2• 13 years ago

So, briefing:

  «There is no doubt who is to blame for this mess, the report says. It is the tobacco industry»

And then:

  «The new report rightly calls for more vigorous tobacco-control efforts, including an increase in cigarette taxes to drive up the average price of cigarettes to at least $10 a pack to prevent young people from starting to smoke; an antismoking mass media campaign by government agencies that would run year-round; and new rules extending smoke-free indoor protection to the entire population, double the current level.»

Let me understand... the solution is not to punish the ones who undoubtedly are to blame for this mess, but the general tax-paying public and the smokers themselves?

argonaut3• 13 years ago

How does that punish the general tax-paying public?

The burden of taxes falls on both consumer and supplier.

goblin89• 13 years ago

Can that anti-smoking campaign be guaranteed to be financed exclusively by the taxes collected from cigarette purchases?

pmr_5• 13 years ago

As a smoker I highly support fair taxes on tobacco. I would welcome the additional incentive to finally stop smoking and I believe that every individual has the right to hurt itself as long as it paying for the damage and not dropping the bill on others (I also think this applies to driving cars, eating unhealthy food, and so on).

One problem in Europe is that tobacco taxes are not bound to be used to bolster the health care systems or smoking prevention programs (In Germany the 2002 and 2003 tax raises have been used for funding the War on Terror). Another problem is, as shown by the article, that our damage estimates are very likely to have a large error margin.

If think if we could improve our damage estimates, use the estimates to continuously adapt taxes, use the tax income to pay for the damage and to prevent spread of the problem the problem could be solved.

To me it seems there is a gap for technology to make those things possible.

aw3c22• 13 years ago

In Germany the 2002 and 2003 tax raises have been used for funding the War on Terror

Citation please!

pmr_5• 13 years ago

In http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/aenderungen-2003-o... see the second heading. I have further news articles from FAZ and Süddeutsche claiming the same. Unfortunately I cannot find an English source, I hope Google Translate is enough.

netcan3• 13 years ago

I disagree with this type of thinking. I think we need to be careful of mandates begetting mandates. I agree with public health spending. I think it's a good thing. But I don't think it should (morally) cost us personal freedoms like that. Paying for health does not give the public mandate over the private's eating/exercise/smoking habits. That is the road to totalitarianism and I don't think there is any reason to travel down it.

Said another way: A public responsibility towards the private person's health care is not a wide responsibility for their health and it does not translate into a right to make an individual's health decisions for them.

pmr_5• 13 years ago

I think you misunderstood me or I wasn't clear. I'm not saying an individual's habits should be regulated or certain products should be banned, but that users of damaging substances should carry the cost those habits cause. This is the opposite from restricting individual freedoms: it makes your more directly responsible for the actions you take and makes you free to take those actions without ever burdening your fellow citizen. Maybe all those things just apply if there is mandatory health care, but I'm not really used to reason in systems where this isn't the case.

tsotha3• 13 years ago

The new report rightly calls for more vigorous tobacco-control efforts, including an increase in cigarette taxes to drive up the average price of cigarettes to at least $10 a pack...

Will that really work? My suspicion is at those prices you're going to see a hell of a lot of smuggling.

anon1385• 13 years ago

The report newly identifies exposure to secondhand smoke as a cause of strokes.

How long do we have to wait till the tobacco industry funded Cato Institute finds some shills to wheel out to deny this?

And how long do we have to wait for them to apologise for decades of spreading FUD and undermining the science that demonstrated the risks of smoking.

jokoon2• 13 years ago

My mother smoked when I was growing up and when she was pregnant.

Each time I inhale a tiny bit of cigaret smoke, I immediatly feel bad and start coughing. Really feels like a poison.

Here in france, a pack of cigaret will soon cost 7 euros. I'm glad. It's a great way to penalize people while reducing the deficit, and encouraging them to stop smoking.

Each time I hear someone complaining about the cost of cigaret in france, I tell them "well it's a great way to finance chemotherapies".

Smoking is a luxury. When you feels you don't have a sharp mind or enough energy at work, and you boosts yourself with a coffee and a cigaret, okay, but I don't think you really need to have those boosts. I'd prefer getting fired instead than competing with drug addicts.

hamax• 13 years ago

"well it's a great way to finance chemotherapies"

That's not how it works. Cigarette tax doesn't go directly to the healthcare budget. At least in most countries.

Smoking is a luxury.

And a very strong addiction.

jokoon2• 13 years ago

That's not how it works. Cigarette tax doesn't go directly to the healthcare budget. At least in most countries.

French healthcare system always finances 2/3 of most cares. I think chemotherpy is included. I don't know about how things happen in the US though.

At least in most countries.

Most developed country have a pretty socialist healthcare system.

ajtaylor• 13 years ago

In Australia, a pack of smokes costs something like $20. No idea where the tax revenue goes, but the cost alone seems like it would be a great disincentive to smoke.

rartichoke• 13 years ago

I smoked a pack a day for about 10 years and have quit for 2 years without using anything special or e-cigs. The quitting process took 3 days.

If anyone who wants to try and quit here's what I did:

1) Make sure you want to quit because if you don't seriously want to quit then you won't no matter what.

2) Smoke less and less every day until you get to zero. This will vary for everyone, I personally did it as fast as I could handle it which mainly consisted of only smoking after meals after I went from 1 pack a day down to half a pack a day.

That's seriously all there is to it. It'll be a little difficult for about a week but then it's pretty much smooth sailing with minor urges.

You'll likely end up creating other habits in the process and afterwards because at the end of the day smoking was a habit to you. Try to pick a less destructive habit this time!

Zigurd• 13 years ago

There is a surprising amount of prudishness about naturally occurring and long-used psychoactive substances here. Once the harm from some traditional ways of ingesting them are ameliorated, the prudishness is irrational. What if nicotine is "better" than caffeine, which I'd wager most readers here have ingested this morning, at boosting cognitive function?

If nicotine, or cannabis, or whatever isn't seen rationally, it will be left to some packaging genius to create the equivalent of a Nepresso pod for vaping it, or consuming it in whatever way is convenient and stylish. That seems weak-minded for a crowd that pats themselves on the back for rationality.

contingencies3• 13 years ago

Agreed. I recently quit smoking, it sucked.

Nicotine gum was how I kept the ability to work. Nontrivial abstract reasoning such as most programming is impossible when you are having nicotine withdrawls. If people want to try nicotine, buy some gum.

Honestly, as far as stimulants go, I've probably tried a serious amount of what's out there from the natural (chewed coca leaves, betel nuts, chewing tobacco, raw tobacco, ephedrine, etc.) to legal and less legal drugs that shall not be enumerated, and I think adequate sleep, exercise and good eating, possibly in combination with some meditation are the lowest hassle and most sustainable productivity enhancers.

Smoking is Worse Than You Imagined

Related Stories