Smoking is associated with lower cognitive function in older adults(news.weill.cornell.edu)
news.weill.cornell.edu
Smoking is associated with lower cognitive function in older adults
https://news.weill.cornell.edu/news/2023/01/in-brief-smoking-is-associated-with-lower-cognitive-function-in-older-adults
121 comments
Cognitive reasoning has nothing to do with addiction. Addicts invent the most convoluted complex reasoning to not quit that are also contrary to facts they are keenly aware of. Mental gymnastics.
Can confirm anecdotally on this one. I had accepted the logical reasons to quit a good year or so before I actually got rid of them.
When I did manage to kick them it was after I read the Easy way to quit smoking by Allen Carr which helped with the mindset then admittedly I ruined the data by moving house and starting a work from home job, therefore got rid of all of my cigarette initiating habits in one go.
When I did manage to kick them it was after I read the Easy way to quit smoking by Allen Carr which helped with the mindset then admittedly I ruined the data by moving house and starting a work from home job, therefore got rid of all of my cigarette initiating habits in one go.
Are your sure your anecdote confirms this?
The higher cognitive function that leads you to read books about quitting could be exactly the mechanism the GP describes.
If books can help you quit, less bookish people will quit less, all else equal.
The higher cognitive function that leads you to read books about quitting could be exactly the mechanism the GP describes.
If books can help you quit, less bookish people will quit less, all else equal.
From what I remember, Easy Way even tells you to keep smoking when you start the book and to stop reading if you don’t feel ready!
FWIW, I also credit that book with me finally quitting the habit.
FWIW, I also credit that book with me finally quitting the habit.
It does yeah, I think that was what made my mind open up to the book early on. An intriguing enough nonfiction twist, I had to see where it was going with this.
I was expecting a mix of "here's why it's bad" and "here's the good stuff, and at which milestone dates you'll notice them" maybe.
The stuff I already knew and believed in really strongly.. for 20 minutes until the third 'last' cigarette of the month.
If anyone else is stuck in a holding pattern of quitting it's worth giving it a shot. Promise no affiliation haha, go see if your local bookshop or charity shop has a used copy for 20p (the pages will be a deep yellow, of course)
I was expecting a mix of "here's why it's bad" and "here's the good stuff, and at which milestone dates you'll notice them" maybe.
The stuff I already knew and believed in really strongly.. for 20 minutes until the third 'last' cigarette of the month.
If anyone else is stuck in a holding pattern of quitting it's worth giving it a shot. Promise no affiliation haha, go see if your local bookshop or charity shop has a used copy for 20p (the pages will be a deep yellow, of course)
I read a different Easy Way book of Carr’s (I understand they are all similar) but felt like by the end I’d been scammed or something - he repeatedly tells you the Way works, and trust the process, and then the book … finishes?
Is it really just that the Easy Way is a self-referential thing and the Way is itself to think about the Way a lot and in doing so convince yourself or your subconscious that you’ve reached some sort of solution despite having not? Or was there some set of concrete messages I might just have missed?
Is the act of reading the book the thing itself?
Is it really just that the Easy Way is a self-referential thing and the Way is itself to think about the Way a lot and in doing so convince yourself or your subconscious that you’ve reached some sort of solution despite having not? Or was there some set of concrete messages I might just have missed?
Is the act of reading the book the thing itself?
There is definitely an element of self-hypnosis!
It's not like inventing most convoluted, complex reasoning to delude yourself on a simple matter is a sign of high cognitive capabilities. Quite the contrary.
An intelligent addict will say: I realize it's terrible but I am losing the battle against the urges every day. Anything more than that smells like low cognitive ability to me.
An intelligent addict will say: I realize it's terrible but I am losing the battle against the urges every day. Anything more than that smells like low cognitive ability to me.
Former smoker, and I agree with this.
More likely, people who smoke do function better cognitively with a cigarette in their hand. They are nervous and irritable without it. Their brains probably produce insufficient dopamine when they aren't smoking.
More likely, people who smoke do function better cognitively with a cigarette in their hand. They are nervous and irritable without it. Their brains probably produce insufficient dopamine when they aren't smoking.
Nicotine has a positive effect on memory. But lower blood oxygen levels and 300+ intentionally added carcinogens to make smoking more addictive probably has considerable adverse effect. People that hate smokers refuse to accept that there is a massive difference between tobacco and what is in cigarettes.
I've never smoked, but recently in my 30s started using nicotine gum 3-5 times per week.
It's amazing for improving focus, I get a lot more work done, remember things very well and am more patient with people.
Doesn't seem addictive in this form either, I can go a week without it and no withdrawal.
Also no negative impact on sleep (unlike caffeine)
It's amazing for improving focus, I get a lot more work done, remember things very well and am more patient with people.
Doesn't seem addictive in this form either, I can go a week without it and no withdrawal.
Also no negative impact on sleep (unlike caffeine)
Does it taste bad?
N=+1 for you on that one.
I quit smoking about 5 years before I was diagnosed with primarily-inattentive ADHD. Diagnosed with insufficient dopamine (uptake?), haha
There was a lot of burnout between the two, incidentally. At one point I'd decided to cut down on the caffeine too, it's almost like I was trying to burn out in hindsight :)
I quit smoking about 5 years before I was diagnosed with primarily-inattentive ADHD. Diagnosed with insufficient dopamine (uptake?), haha
There was a lot of burnout between the two, incidentally. At one point I'd decided to cut down on the caffeine too, it's almost like I was trying to burn out in hindsight :)
People who are addicted to cocaine perform better at their jobs if provided with it versus those who are in withdrawal
This is called fundamental attribution error.
People do not have some hidden addict/not-addict bit.
Smart people become addicted to things at a lower rate than not-smart people, and smart people become un-addicted to things at a higher rate than not-smart people.
People do not have some hidden addict/not-addict bit.
Smart people become addicted to things at a lower rate than not-smart people, and smart people become un-addicted to things at a higher rate than not-smart people.
Rare is the person who doesn't engage in mental gymnastics, like post-hoc rationalization of sub-perceptual heuristic predictions of what is true, sometimes accompanied by proactive debunking of alternative perspectives.
Indeed. This is a matter of virtue. Being more "adept" can lead to more elaborate rationalizations and evasions of the truth to justify substance abuse or even deny that any abuse is happening.
You have to smoke the first couple cigarettes to get addicted, though…
[deleted]
Socioeconomic factors and other random circumstances are going to impact exposure & normalization of the behavior.
Thought experiment: Take 1000 13 year olds of equal cognitive capacity and place half in peer groups where some smoke half in peer groups where none smoke. I’m guessing there would end up being more of the first 500 that decide to take up the habit.
There is also a difference between cognitive function and reasoning capacity, the later also strongly influenced by socioeconomic factors.
Thought experiment: Take 1000 13 year olds of equal cognitive capacity and place half in peer groups where some smoke half in peer groups where none smoke. I’m guessing there would end up being more of the first 500 that decide to take up the habit.
There is also a difference between cognitive function and reasoning capacity, the later also strongly influenced by socioeconomic factors.
Yes, but that doesn’t contradict anything that was said.
[deleted]
> Cognitive reasoning has nothing to do with addiction.
Citation needed. As the GP pointed out, we have a correlation between addiction and lower cognitive function based on this study.
Citation needed. As the GP pointed out, we have a correlation between addiction and lower cognitive function based on this study.
No, there's no citation needed because there are plenty of genius addicts and this study alone proves nothing. At the absolute bare minimum this would have to replicate.
> there are plenty of genius addicts.
How many is plenty? And how does that compare to the general population? The claim isn’t that addiction and intelligence are mutually exclusive. Rather, the claim is that intelligence makes addiction less likely.
How many is plenty? And how does that compare to the general population? The claim isn’t that addiction and intelligence are mutually exclusive. Rather, the claim is that intelligence makes addiction less likely.
Almost all that I care about mid-last century anyway. I mean give me a break, Einstein smoked. If you seriously think addiction has anything to do with intelligence then you've never been addicted and know nothing about it.
Here is a study that looks at alcoholics: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6851852/
According to the study, alcoholics had a lower baseline IQ before becoming addicted to alcohol. So that does seem to support that lower cognitive function is somehow linked to becoming an addict.
According to the study, alcoholics had a lower baseline IQ before becoming addicted to alcohol. So that does seem to support that lower cognitive function is somehow linked to becoming an addict.
Could that also mean Einstein might have been even smarter had he not smoked
A genius addict disproves the broader claim no more than does "it was cold today, therefore global warming is a hoax". The rule can be true yet still have notable exceptions throughout history.
No, you're just intentionally ignoring the word "plenty."
It's actually "genius" that's the problem. There aren't enough geniuses to affect a trend on their own.
You could swap "plenty" to "every" and it would still have the same problem
You could swap "plenty" to "every" and it would still have the same problem
There are "plenty" of cold days as well. Does that disprove global warming?
Not only is "plenty" not an objective quantity, but even an objectively large quantity is irrelevant if it's not a large percentage of the whole. 100k geniuses with addiction problems wouldn't disprove the rule if there are 1b people with addiction problems who are of below average intelligence.
Not only is "plenty" not an objective quantity, but even an objectively large quantity is irrelevant if it's not a large percentage of the whole. 100k geniuses with addiction problems wouldn't disprove the rule if there are 1b people with addiction problems who are of below average intelligence.
As he should. Plenty is extremely vague. It definitely means more than 1, probably more than 3, but after that.
That’s no proof they didn’t suffer cognitive decline. Perhaps Einstein did suffer cognitive decline.
I get what you're saying but best not to say "prove it didn't.."
Better to note that since the study isn't claiming every person who smokes suffer cognitive decline showing a person who is a genius and smokes isn't a counter
Better to note that since the study isn't claiming every person who smokes suffer cognitive decline showing a person who is a genius and smokes isn't a counter
[deleted]
Man, you clearly have no clue about addictions. Addictions work with your emotions 100x stronger than you can muster your reasoning against it. I'd say willpower is the only defense.
You are basically saying - if I am smart enough, I will reach this tantric nirvana in lotus position and wave away these pesky addictions forever (joking a bit but not that much). Not based in reality, which is more like permanent weakness or crack forms in your persona that you can never mend back to original state, just with tons of continuous effort keep working around it, till your last day. It gets a bit better over time, but it takes literally decades and not that much.
Very smart people struggled with addictions, and failed for their whole lives, even if they knew perfectly well how deep in shit they were. Cigarettes are much worse due to smart marketing of tobacco this lethal addiction was completely normalized by society, and in many places still is, so its extremely easy to access them in one's close circles. That's why roughly 95% of the tobacco addicts never succeeded with stopping.
You are basically saying - if I am smart enough, I will reach this tantric nirvana in lotus position and wave away these pesky addictions forever (joking a bit but not that much). Not based in reality, which is more like permanent weakness or crack forms in your persona that you can never mend back to original state, just with tons of continuous effort keep working around it, till your last day. It gets a bit better over time, but it takes literally decades and not that much.
Very smart people struggled with addictions, and failed for their whole lives, even if they knew perfectly well how deep in shit they were. Cigarettes are much worse due to smart marketing of tobacco this lethal addiction was completely normalized by society, and in many places still is, so its extremely easy to access them in one's close circles. That's why roughly 95% of the tobacco addicts never succeeded with stopping.
[deleted]
> Promoting smoking cessation may be a good way to preserve cognitive health at the population level, irrespective of diabetes and hypertension status, the researchers concluded.
Emphasis mine. They don't appear to claim anything definitive. But given this new study, and others that claim causal links with smoking leading to atherosclerosis, etc., it's quite plausible. Yet they don't go too far, and still do the right thing and say may.
Emphasis mine. They don't appear to claim anything definitive. But given this new study, and others that claim causal links with smoking leading to atherosclerosis, etc., it's quite plausible. Yet they don't go too far, and still do the right thing and say may.
> "yeah well smoking is dangerous. People with more cognitive power are presumably better at reasoning themselves out of smoking; Given the fact that smoking is known to increase the risk of getting cancer."
Ignoring how absolutely mindboggingly stupid that statement is and how you expose yourself as a massive, clueless asshole ... the one thing your post achieves otherwise is exposing a lot of other people who are also completely disconnected from themselves and the people around them.
Way to go, asshole! :D
Ignoring how absolutely mindboggingly stupid that statement is and how you expose yourself as a massive, clueless asshole ... the one thing your post achieves otherwise is exposing a lot of other people who are also completely disconnected from themselves and the people around them.
Way to go, asshole! :D
Sorry that you feel bad.
Hope you discover the unconscious parts of your mind that is causing you pain so you can deal with the issue, God luck!
Hope you discover the unconscious parts of your mind that is causing you pain so you can deal with the issue, God luck!
You're just some random, weak wannabe on the internet, sitting on a high horse. I don't feel bad. That's just your fake superiority and disconnection from reality making you believe so.
When you inevitably fall from that undeserved high horse, you will cry like the bitch you are! :D
Oh, btw: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/O_KuXhwqXwQ
When you inevitably fall from that undeserved high horse, you will cry like the bitch you are! :D
Oh, btw: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/O_KuXhwqXwQ
You are sad according to my definition of sad (witch in a unified person should lead to one "feeling bad")... A definition with a criteria that is something like this:
"A person who is not sad, is not unjustifiably rude to people."
As you are quick to point out, you might not feel the subjective felling. You telling me that could in a sense be seen as a confirmation that you have big blindspots and that you are therefore not unified.
"A person who is not sad, is not unjustifiably rude to people."
As you are quick to point out, you might not feel the subjective felling. You telling me that could in a sense be seen as a confirmation that you have big blindspots and that you are therefore not unified.
The question is: are people stupid because they are smoking or are they smoking because they are stupid.
From the press release, it does not seem that they took any measures to establish causation (like comparing IQ tests from the time before people started smoking). I would wager that people with higher cognitive abilities might be more amenable to the advice of their doctors.
From the press release, it does not seem that they took any measures to establish causation (like comparing IQ tests from the time before people started smoking). I would wager that people with higher cognitive abilities might be more amenable to the advice of their doctors.
> The question is: are people stupid because they are smoking or are they smoking because they are stupid.
I would argue that culture is a better root cause causal explanation, with stupidity and smoking both being consequences of that (though each with their own causal influence to some degree).
I would argue that culture is a better root cause causal explanation, with stupidity and smoking both being consequences of that (though each with their own causal influence to some degree).
Culture is a non-explanation. Everything is culture. Culture is everything. Culture is influenced by everything and everything influences culture.
One of these ("Culture is a non-explanation") is not like the others.
My mother has COPD from being a life long smoker. Because her lungs aren't working 100% her blood oxygen is often lower than optimal, I'm starting to be able to notice when her blood oxygen is low because her sleep pattern gets weird and she starts making silly mistakes in the tasks she's doing.
So that's one way smoking can be a cause of lower cognitive function.
So that's one way smoking can be a cause of lower cognitive function.
I think this is a class thing coming out in the data. I don't smoke but nicotine itself helps people think clearer, sharper, it's a great thing
Nicotine could help you think sharper in the short term while smoking still does long-term damage to the brain. This study was about smoking specifically, not nicotine consumption in general.
Luckily we have some good research on both. It turns out smoking, of /any/ substance, is a net negative for a person's health. It is unsurprising that there is long-term damage to the brain, because in the short term when you smoke you are causing a reduction in oxygenation, which no doubt has long-term effects when done repetitively, nicotine aside.
[deleted]
Definitely. Lower class status is associated with smoking. It is certainly the inhaled particulate matter that is causing cognitive issues — similar associations to cognitive decline can be found with high PM2.5 exposure, irrespective of the source (industry, traffic, cooking, woodsmoke, etc).
Yes, but the smoking demographic may experience higher cognitive decline in general due to other lifestyle factors not caused by inhaled particulates.
Can you elaborate on this?
What other lifestyle factors involving the smoking demographic are you referencing?
What other lifestyle factors involving the smoking demographic are you referencing?
Smoking is more prevalent on the lower end of the household income scale, so any other lifestyle factors that correlate with income (too many to list here) will contribute to poorer health outcomes for the demographic in general.
Or just with oral breathing in general https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8228257/
Nicotine apparently results in higher cotinine levels (which is the marker with which they found a link with lower cognition in this study).
I wonder if there's something about the effects on the brain over time that makes cognitive function worse over time, even if it's helpful in the short-term.
It's also possible people are self-medicating.
If you tested cognitive function on people who have been prescribed to adderall their entire lives vs. people who had not, you might find lower cognitive function in the group with ADD.. but that could also be due to the tests favouring neurotypical people.
I wonder if there's something about the effects on the brain over time that makes cognitive function worse over time, even if it's helpful in the short-term.
It's also possible people are self-medicating.
If you tested cognitive function on people who have been prescribed to adderall their entire lives vs. people who had not, you might find lower cognitive function in the group with ADD.. but that could also be due to the tests favouring neurotypical people.
Depends how you consume it. I assume cardio vascular health will have long term consequences on cognitive function so a lifetime of smoking might have a negative effect in thinking.
Here's a tip: you can buy concentrated nicotine shots from vape stores, mix 10ml with 5ml ethanol and 5ml water, add a drop of menthol, and you got dirt cheap nicotine mouth spray (Nicorette sells the same thing for an arm and a leg).
Purest, "healthiest" method of consumption I found. Not sure if I'd call it a great thing though. It's still addictive, and no matter what anyone says, I'm pretty sure nicotine is a mild poison. Would advise anyone to stay clear of the substance, unless you're already an addict and currently smoking/vaping/snusing, then it's a great alternative.
Purest, "healthiest" method of consumption I found. Not sure if I'd call it a great thing though. It's still addictive, and no matter what anyone says, I'm pretty sure nicotine is a mild poison. Would advise anyone to stay clear of the substance, unless you're already an addict and currently smoking/vaping/snusing, then it's a great alternative.
Any sources on that?
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=nicotine+improves+memor...
Obviously the query will bias the results, but I do believe this is true.
But there is a big difference between smoking and nicotine.
Obviously the query will bias the results, but I do believe this is true.
But there is a big difference between smoking and nicotine.
Nicotine is a wonderful anxiolytic (anti-anxiety) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4439881/
There is no evidence that I am aware of that supports it otherwise improving cognition, but for many people anxiolytics will behave like nootropics (and indeed are sometimes listed as one!)
There is no evidence that I am aware of that supports it otherwise improving cognition, but for many people anxiolytics will behave like nootropics (and indeed are sometimes listed as one!)
...in the 169 rats that were part of the study.
It further concludes:
> High doses of nicotine or repeated exposure may also promote anxiety (citing 3 studies)
> low doses of nicotine have a similar effect to decrease anxiety behaviours [...] whereas high doses of nicotine promote anxiety behaviours
It further concludes:
> High doses of nicotine or repeated exposure may also promote anxiety (citing 3 studies)
> low doses of nicotine have a similar effect to decrease anxiety behaviours [...] whereas high doses of nicotine promote anxiety behaviours
Most drugs are dose dependent.
The effects of nicotine as an anxiolytic are well known:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12151749/
Rat studies to find dose limits are a valid case for rat studies.
The effects of nicotine as an anxiolytic are well known:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12151749/
Rat studies to find dose limits are a valid case for rat studies.
Hmmmmmmmmm is that why I got much more anxious after quitting... Interesting!
Those were more likely withdrawal symptoms
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/campaign/tips/quit-smoking/7-com...
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/campaign/tips/quit-smoking/7-com...
Foods have nicotine. Perhaps not as dense as cigarettes but still
thats where vapejuice nicotine comes from, tomato, eggplant etc
Even moderate alcohol consumption is also associated with cognitive decline. It reduces your white matter (connections between neurons.) My brain is my biggest asset, I would not do anything to compromise it. I don’t touch marijuana or street drugs primarily for that reason. Yet I drink.
So I’m changing that. I’m doing a complete sober month, after which I may go back to drinking occasionally, but only in social activities (once a week or less) and a limit of 3 drinks. So far I’m on track and I don’t miss it anymore (the first week I did.) It’s not worth the downside to me.
So I’m changing that. I’m doing a complete sober month, after which I may go back to drinking occasionally, but only in social activities (once a week or less) and a limit of 3 drinks. So far I’m on track and I don’t miss it anymore (the first week I did.) It’s not worth the downside to me.
Just read this one today...
https://www.reddit.com/r/KitchenConfidential/comments/10my22...
Not just drinking booze, but how/what you drink. Imagine all that sludge passing into your system and the effect it has on you.
https://www.reddit.com/r/KitchenConfidential/comments/10my22...
Not just drinking booze, but how/what you drink. Imagine all that sludge passing into your system and the effect it has on you.
I literally have never been a drinker but I still find that post traumatizing. I mean, I do eat at McDonald’s
Well, that was enlightening. Bottled beer only for me from now on.
Smoking is probably associated with any number of other poor health choices. Seems like the constellation of them as a whole may be a reasonable cause, less so than any one of them.
That's literally the purpose of this study: to control for two other major health problems and see if the (already recognized) correlation still holds.
And I’m saying there are many more, dozens of small choices and more, that make up a bigger picture. I’m talking about choices, not other medical conditions. Choices can influence hypertension and diabetes but choices alone are not always enough. Smoking is always a choice.
Correlation does not equate causation.
> “You still think I’ve gone cracked in the head,” Ben said, amused. “Listen, if tomorrow we pulled into Biren and someone told you there were shamble-men in the woods, would you believe them?”
> My father shook his head.
> “What if two people told you?”
> Another shake.
> Ben leaned forward on his stump. “What if a dozen people told you, with perfect earnestness, that shamble-men were out in the fields, eating—”
> “Of course I wouldn’t believe them,” my father said, irritated. “It’s ridiculous.”
> “Of course it is,” Ben agreed, raising a finger. “But the real question is this: Would you go into the woods?”
— Patrick Rothfluss, The Name of the Wind
> My father shook his head.
> “What if two people told you?”
> Another shake.
> Ben leaned forward on his stump. “What if a dozen people told you, with perfect earnestness, that shamble-men were out in the fields, eating—”
> “Of course I wouldn’t believe them,” my father said, irritated. “It’s ridiculous.”
> “Of course it is,” Ben agreed, raising a finger. “But the real question is this: Would you go into the woods?”
— Patrick Rothfluss, The Name of the Wind
I love that whole scene and that passage in particular, one of my all time favorites from NOTW. Rothfuss is an incredible writer.
People say this and refuse to see that correlations are also extremely interesting and worthy objects of study.
Tucker was right that smoking "frees your mind".
Here is some constructive criticism for the authors:
- Do not put your article behind a paywall. If you want the best scientists to look at your work they don't have much time to waste fiddling with logins and paywalls and so your work won't get analyzed by the people who could provide the most help. If you want to "win" in science in the long run, put it in the public domain. Or, to put it bluntly: #LicensesAreForLosers.
- You need to include a scatterplot up top. The importance thing when you talk about "cognitive function" is the distribution, not the average. If it lowers average cognitive function, but also increases odds of a higher outlier or two, then perhaps the tradeoff is worth it.
- Do not put your article behind a paywall. If you want the best scientists to look at your work they don't have much time to waste fiddling with logins and paywalls and so your work won't get analyzed by the people who could provide the most help. If you want to "win" in science in the long run, put it in the public domain. Or, to put it bluntly: #LicensesAreForLosers.
- You need to include a scatterplot up top. The importance thing when you talk about "cognitive function" is the distribution, not the average. If it lowers average cognitive function, but also increases odds of a higher outlier or two, then perhaps the tradeoff is worth it.
>you want the best scientists to look at your work they don't have much time to waste fiddling with logins and paywalls and so your work won't get analyzed by the people who could provide the most help.
Won't they mostly be using some university IP with subscriptions to basically every journal and not see the paywalls in the first place? At least that was my experience of university.
Won't they mostly be using some university IP with subscriptions to basically every journal and not see the paywalls in the first place? At least that was my experience of university.
Smoking cigarettes. Should really be crystal clear on that point.
Inhaling smoke of any kind is inherently bad for you, it releases all sorts of carcinogens and other crap. Vaping is orders of magnitude safer, and for weed edibles are of course your best option.
[deleted]
> Inhaling smoke of any kind is inherently bad for you
I think a solid argument could be made that lack of usage of drugs (even just plain old marijuana at a minimum) causes more harm than smoking, my thinking being roughly: drugs can (at least temporarily) break through the mental state established by cultural ~programming, cultural programming is the underlying cause of many evils in the world, and many such evils can increase dependence on addictive substances as a coping mechanism.
I think a solid argument could be made that lack of usage of drugs (even just plain old marijuana at a minimum) causes more harm than smoking, my thinking being roughly: drugs can (at least temporarily) break through the mental state established by cultural ~programming, cultural programming is the underlying cause of many evils in the world, and many such evils can increase dependence on addictive substances as a coping mechanism.
* in an otherwise healthy individual.
I’m not anti drugs at all, I wish using didn’t put people in jails, and that everyone would be able to buy high quality, tested products from the government. That said, drugs can trigger quite a few episodes in people with other mental conditions (diagnosed or not), so while they’re fun for most people they’re not without some risk either.
I’m not anti drugs at all, I wish using didn’t put people in jails, and that everyone would be able to buy high quality, tested products from the government. That said, drugs can trigger quite a few episodes in people with other mental conditions (diagnosed or not), so while they’re fun for most people they’re not without some risk either.
> * in an otherwise healthy individual.
Disagree. The net end result, which is unknown, is required to know the optimal approach.
> That said, drugs can trigger quite a few episodes in people with other mental conditions (diagnosed or not), so while they’re fun for most people they’re not without some risk either.
Unknown is the risks of running society according to the (unavoidably) delusional beliefs of influential people, under a highly illusory political system (that seems to be much more easily realized via drug usage).
Disagree. The net end result, which is unknown, is required to know the optimal approach.
> That said, drugs can trigger quite a few episodes in people with other mental conditions (diagnosed or not), so while they’re fun for most people they’re not without some risk either.
Unknown is the risks of running society according to the (unavoidably) delusional beliefs of influential people, under a highly illusory political system (that seems to be much more easily realized via drug usage).
Stating the obvious while using scientific words is associated with useless work
dqpb(4)
taneq(5)
Smoking is stupid. Am I missing the point?
Seams like that is a statement that can not be made solely based on the stated connection. To me the initial thought that occurred when reading was something like:
"yeah well smoking is dangerous. People with more cognitive power are presumably better at reasoning themselves out of smoking; Given the fact that smoking is known to increase the risk of getting cancer."
If that description describes something that is a big factor in determining a persons smoking habit, smoking would not necessarily cause a cognitive decline as implied in the recommendation.